When I entered the workforce as a callow teen, in the summer of 1966, I received my first minimum wage paycheck of roughly fifty dollars as if it was gold-plated. Babysitting had only netted me .75 per hour, so $1.25 represented a huge raise for me.
A gallon of milk was .99. A gallon of gas was .32. First-class postage cost a nickel, and the average cost of a new house was around $15,000. A brand new car was in the $2,600. range.
1966 was also the year in which, under a federal mandate from the Johnson administration, the University of Wisconsin created its "Institute on Poverty Research." Just three years later a social conscience was not yet unfashionable, and childhood poverty rates reached their lowest level ever, when only 14% of children lived in poverty. That figure is now at roughly 22%.
In 1966, most qualified students could attend a public university for next to nothing, and even "Ivy League" privates charged only about $3,000. per year.
Just as today, we had an unpopular war in a strange foreign land; but we also were still a manufacturing powerhouse then, and upward mobility was an achievable goal. Our cup was at least half-full.
So what exactly does the new minimum wage for Vermont, at $8.46 per hour (the third highest in the land) puchase in 2012's economy?
It would buy you a lot more milk than it did in 1966, at an average price of $3.76 per gallon in 2011; but only a little more than two gallons of high-test as opposed to three in '66. Of course bizarre price-fixing schemes that profit everyone but the small, responsible farmer and the independent gas station account for the relatively low cost of food and fuel in today's economy.
The more substantial costs of living, like housing, education and transportation tell quite a different story.
Sometimes I am struck by the persistent oddity of our local news.
This week in St. Albans, a bank robber who escaped on bicycle is being sought by authorities; and apparently, Burlington police are so untroubled by real emergencies that they are hunting the "raccoon lady."
The story has even captured the imagination of national news outlets like Huffington Post which seldom considers Vermont beyond Bernie Sanders.
For those of you who missed the bulletin two weeks ago, a woman marched up to the doors of Burlington's City Hall and angrily whacked them with a dead raccoon. The mysterious blonde perpetrator now appears to be the subject of a man-hunt, complete with blurry front page photo in the Free Press!
What I want to know is why?
Is she sought in the murder investigation of said raccoon? Given her brazen approach to the seat of power, it seems unlikely that she done the deed herself.
Are the police looking for her because she defaced public property? That would represent truly screwy priorities.
All that remains as a reasonable possibility is that they are looking for her to make sure she is alright; that her issue, whatever it was, gets addressed; and that, if there are underlying health issues in her assault on City Hall, she gets the care she badly needs.
This is what I'd like to believe is going on here, but we aren't exactly distinguishing ourselves these days as a poster-state for mental healthcare.
I can't help thinking that a highly public police pursuit is hardly what the doctor would have ordered for this enigmatic lady.
On November 10, 2011, at 2:07 pm Burlington Police received a report of a person who had been shot inside a tent in City Hall Park. Police and Emergency Medical Services from the Burlington Fire Department responded to the scene and discovered the male had sustained a gunshot wound to the head. He was transported to Fletcher Allen Hospital in Burlington where he passed away around 5 p.m. The male is identified as Joshua Pfenning, 35, transient from the area. Our thoughts are with his family and friends during this difficult time. Mr. Pfenning has ties to the Northeast Kingdom.
This is what we've come to. In the surreal world where money equals free-speech, only codified and strengthened by the Citizens United decision, we must endure countless squabbles like this.
Most Americans (and I say this with well-acknowleged statistics to rely upon) barely have a pot to piss in. If they have one, they are most likely on the lookout for the repo man.
Free-speech? If you only get what you can pay for, the majority of Americans have far less than their fair share.
So what gives with all the RGA snivelling about victimization?
(Repub. Gov.'s Assoc. lawyer, Chris) Roy said the GOP group believes it is the victim of selective prosecution by the state Attorney General's Office on the donation issue. Both the Republican Governors Association and the Democratic Governors Association collect money nationwide the same way, but he said only the GOP group has been targeted for violating the state's donation limit.
Assistant Attny. General Megan J. Schafritz doesn't think so:
"We don't feel there is any evidence of bias or disparate treatment," she said. She noted the Attorney General's Office earlier in 2010 had chosen not to pursue a campaign finance complaint about the GOP group after concluding there was insufficient evident to support the claim.
And there is the small fact that the RGA outspent the DGA, more than two-to-one on that particular campaign cycle; so it's hard to weep real tears of sympathy.
It's hard to weep real tears for either side. We're talking hundreds-of-thousands, even millions of dollars in the case of the Republican Governor's Association, scattered to the four winds in order to exert outside influence on Vermont's domestic elections.
How much of a "job creator" was that expenditure, I wonder? I'd wager, not much, considering the sectors that are suffering right now.
I suppose it could be regarded as a make-work project for the AGO, but a whole lot of social service providers would probably much rather see that money spent to relieve the suffering of their clients.
Unless we gird ourselves to eliminate private funding from election campaigns, we can look forward to a future in which our pay-to-play democracy begins to look more and more likeTerry Gilliam's "Brazil," and less and less like Frank Capra's "Mr. Smth Goes to Washington."
In honor of gay and lesbian history month – did you know that October is LGBT History Month? – and the second anniversary of my wedding (11 years and 6 weeks after my civil union; 31 years, 7 months, and 3 weeks after my spouse and I initiated our relationship), I present the following photographs:
While I was at home getting married (by a JP in front of the woodstove in our livingroom), my friend and colleague Ernie and his husband Kevin were marching in Washington, DC. They were wearing these tee shirts they had made for the occasion. And because Vermont had just passed marriage equality over the veto of a Republican governor, they received rousing cheers wherever they went.
The fact that the anniversary of the date the law took effect (September 1) went by without much public notice is as it should be: equality is the right thing to do, the right law to enact, and it should all be as matter-of-fact as getting a birth certificate.
I've often found myself in the position of being one of the Agency of Natural Resources' harshest critics.
Under the Douglas administration, the ANR's team in the trenches seemed to always be hamstrung by the agenda at the top. "Business friendly" was a euphemism for regulation-light.
Now it's time to give Deb Markowitz and the new, improved ANR their due. The weekend papers carry an editorial by Sec. Markowitz that delivers some relief for the anguished concerns of environmentalists all over the state.
Irene did plenty of damage to the infrastructure of the state; but temporarily abandoning prudent regulatory practices in order to get the state up and running again came with it's own set of damaging issues. Some may have viewed the temporary lapse as an opportunity to be exploited rather than a trust to be honored.
In a year of state fiscal restraints and federal obstructions, the Agency faced a dilemma:
Getting this balance right - with 2,000 locations with flooding impacted rivers and streams - is challenging, and responding to this statewide emergency clearly has strained the finite resources of the Agency of Natural Resources Rivers Program.
Now, the ANR has essentially changed the flashing yellow light to red, and reconstruction "traffic" will henceforth have to obey some rules.
Starting last week, staff began the shift from an exclusive focus on emergency response to working with communities, businesses and homeowners to maximize the long-term effectiveness of our state's flood recovery work. We will be moving from oral authorizations to written documentation to ensure that work is done in conformity with the rules.
For those unwilling to accept the decision on a purely environmental basis, Sec. Markowitz offers this more pragmatic perspective:
Work in Vermont's streams and rivers must be done with the knowledge that doing the work incorrectly is just money down the hole.
The Agency says it is looking forward to
engaging Vermonters in a conversation about how we can rebuild Vermont to be stronger and more resilient to the next round of flooding.
Which brings me to the ongoing ANR Public Forums addressing Act 250 permitting.
As if Vermont needs kicking when we're busy helping each other recover from the damage of Tropical Storm Irene ... Vermont's R.U.12? LGBTQ Community Center has sent around an alert that the folks from Westboro, Kansas Baptist Church are planning to picket with the usual epithets at the State House in Montpelier TOMORROW, Labor Day, 2011.
Their message seems to be that Irene's damage was retribution from an angry god because Vermont recognizes same-sex marriage.
As Vermont's LGBT community center and advocacy organization, we wanted to alert the community that we've received news that the Westboro Baptist Church is coming to Montpelier with their "God Hates Fags" and anti-Semitic messages on Labor Day, Monday September 5th. (Read More About Their Visit Here: http://bit.ly/n2W6Si). This isn't the first time that the WBC has come to Vermont to spread words of bigotry and intolerance, but this time their scheduled protest comes at a time when our region is recovering from a natural disaster, proclaiming that the loss of lives is proof that God punishes those permitting same-sex marriage.
The RU12? Community Center staff and board are encouraging folks to avoid giving this hateful group the attention they are seeking. Instead of participating in an in-person counter protest in Montpelier, we are asking the community to consider directing their focus towards helping Vermont recover from the devastating storm last week. By getting involved in the recovery efforts, we can turn this hate filled message into something positive for our communities. [...]
[emphasis added]
You can also counter the Westboro Baptist Church's message by helping Vermont LGBT organizations end hate and build community: Pledge a dime, a quarter, a dollar or two dollars, (or however much you can!) to the RU12? Community Center, Outright Vermont, or Vermont Fund For Families for every minute WBC is picketing in Vermont.Email these groups with your name, phone number, mailing address, and the amount per minute you'd like to pledge at TheCenter@ru12.org, info@outrightvt.org, or info@vermontfundforfamilies.org.
You can donate directly on the Network for Good website:
Outright Vermont: http://bit.ly/nf43NV
RU12? Community Center: http://bit.ly/nOJNR3
Then again, after Irene, the WBC's hateful bloviating is pretty pathetic. Too bad we couldn't capture the hot air to dry out a few basements.
In light of the very recent Supreme Court decision upholding a permit for JLD Properties to build a big box Walmart in St. Albans, I have a challenge to put to Governor Peter Shumlin:
Deliver to us the transparency and accountability that you pledged just months ago in your election campaign.
I bought it; hook, line and sinker; and I worked tirelessly after your nomination to see you elected.
Just three short months after you took office, I sent an e-mail on the governor's website asking that, given the nature and intent of Act 250 permitting, science, and not just business, be represented in appointments to the District 6 Environmental Commission.
I also specifically explained the potential conflicts of interests that made businessman and Douglas appointee Dan Luneau an inappropriate choice for that commission. As I pointed out, the fact that his family has opportunistically located a big retail business at Exit 20 of I-89, where most large-scale development requiring Act 250 review is likely to occur, makes his bias permanently suspect.
That bias has already been raised as an issue at the Act 250 hearings regarding the St. Albans Walmart, but Mr. Luneau refused to recuse himself.
Vermont law, it seems, leaves it up to the individual to decide for himself whether or not he can act in a quasi-judicial role without bias.
As naive as this arrangement seems, it is worsened by the fact that there is no penalty if the individual acting in this role is found to have made a judgement that was contaminated by his conflict of interests.
Bearing all of this in mind, and in light of the fact that accountability had been so much a component of his election promises, one would think that the Governor might take very seriously the concerns raised by a District 6 resident about appointments to her local Commission.
Without recounting once again the slow exchange of phone calls and letters in a vain attempt to get the Governor to not re-appoint Mr. Luneau as Chair of the District 6 commission, I will just leave you to read all of that in the link I have provided.
Today I have been told that there is also no penalty enforceable on Bob Johnson who was the chairman of the DRB that issued the local Walmart permit, despite the fact that the Supreme Court of Vermont clearly states in its findings that his actions flagrantly violated our civil rights.
So much for accountability.
There is a culture of cronyism run wild in Vermont. It contaminates decisions on such a routine basis that most people have simply come to accept it as "just the way things get done."
This simply is WRONG. If you can't see that, I'm afraid there isn't much hope for the promise of accountability.
Here then is my challenge to the Shumlin administration:
Make good on your promise. Charge the legislature with drafting a statewide ethics policy that effectively addresses conflicts of interests by establishing meaningful penalties for violations.
I have served as spokesperson for the group through much of the eight+ years in which we have been opposing the current JLD Properties St. Albans Walmart application.
Here follows our formal statement on the Supreme Court decision to uphold the permit:
The Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth are extremely disappointed by the decision of Vermont's Supreme Court with regard to the J.L.D. Properties Walmart permit application.
The decision indicates a disregard for citizen access within the local permit process, not to mention for the validity of that process itself.
The judges acknowledged the egregious nature of conflicts of interest that occurred in the local permit process, which is the only level at which ordinary citizens may participate without devoting considerable financial resources to the effort. By ruling that those conflicts of interest do not matter because of the "de novo" nature of the Environmental Court hearing, they are saying essentially that the local permit is meaningless.
We sincerely hope for the best possible outcome for our communities, and we trust that the careful scrutiny that we will apply to Mr. Davis' St. Albans Walmart, both during the construction phase and throughout its operation, will serve to ensure that this will be the most scrupulously operated Walmart store in history, and that none of the issues of traffic congestion, secondary growth, store closings and environmental degradation that we fear will be allowed to ensue.
There is so much more I'd like to say about this, but I'll reserve that for another time.
Well, it appears that Tom Salmon has finally settled on what he wants to be when he grows up: a U.S. senator.
Ever since his reelection to serve as state auditor, the Boy Wonder has made it known that he didn't really want to do that job, but would rather begin immediately positioning himself to run for something grander.
Tuesday night's Letters to the Editor in The Messenger was graced with an incoherent Salmon screed against Bernie Sanders for... what exactly? Is it for representing the interests of the elderly, veterans and working men and women? Ever the master of nuance, Auditor Salmon somehow manages to offend nearly everyone who labors in this state:
Senator Sanders is a Senator of the United States. He is not a lobbyist for the AARP, the Veterans of America or the many Unions that financially support him. He has not spent a day teaching in the public schools, nor a day on the battlefield. He is neither a nuclear scientist, a CPA or a healthcare professional...But yet, he has spent the last year raising $1.5 million for his re-election campaign and getting people whipped into a frenzy over "unfairness."
Whoa! Can we conclude from that diatribe that Mr. Salmon will not accept campaign donations from corporations and the independently wealthy who would most benefit from his anti-populist agenda?
Should the heavens part in recognition of his birthright, and he make the unlikely ascent to the throne of "Senator Salmon," I guess we can assume that the full spectrum of peoples whose interests Bernie consistently stands for can pretty well lump-it when it comes to any issues of "unfairness."
And what's this? Bernie Sanders has been "silent" over the debt ceiling crisis?
"Nearly eight months after his famous filibuster, when leaders are truly needed, he is particularly quiet as solutions are being sought."
Throughout his tenure, Governor Douglas complained bitterly to anyone who would listen, of the onerous burden imposed on business by Vermont's system of environmental regulation. Despite all the crocodile tears, one of the worst kept secrets in Montpelier was that the watchdog in charge of enforcement of those regulations had no teeth, and that there was systemic dysfunction in the Agency of Natural Resources.
Here is the first true test of whether or not there's been a significant change of culture within the Agency. Regulatory violations in connection with the Lowell Wind Project provide a high-profile opportunity for the new ANR Secretary and her team to demonstrate that more than simple delays will be the consequences for those who would play fast and loose with Vermont's environmental regulations.
The issue here stands quite apart from whether or not the Lowell Wind Farm is a good idea. If violations of rules, once discovered, result in little more than a slap on the wrist, where is the disincentive?
All I've read so far with regard to the Lowell violations suggests their discovery may only mean a slight delay for the developers while the issues are "resolved."
Agency of Natural Resources Secretary Deb Markowitz said her agency has been to the site and is assessing the damage. She expected to determine what consequences,if any, the electric utility would face. Markowitz said at the agency's request, Green Mountain Power asked the Public Service Board not to give final approval to its conservation easements until the issues are resolved.
(emphasis added)
Without meaningful penalties, disregarding those environmental rules becomes little more than a calculated risk that may be factored into a project even in the conceptual stage.
C'mon Secretary Markowitz, it's time to let the dogs out.
The final round goes to the Governor whose letter of July 28 indicates that he knew of our issues with Mr. Luneau before re-appointing him and still stands by that appointment. I will add the letter to "comments" and urge everyone to diligently monitor Environmental Commission appointments in your own districts.
If Mr. Luneau has some science background I am unaware of that makes him particularly valuable in this capacity, I'd really like to know.
If not, it is difficult to escape the impression that he is being appointed repeatedly, despite local complaints, purely for political reasons.
______________________________________________________________
I quietly stewed over that non-response from the governor until today, when I sent yet another letter to Peter Shumlin, quoted below in "comments." ...................................................................................................
Well, the squeaky wheel sometimes just gets put away in the closet.
I got my response from Peter Shumlin in this morning's mail. I've added the text to the comments so you can judge for yourselves whether or not my concerns were addressed.
______________________________________________________________
I wrote to Governor Douglas a couple of times and, perhaps predictably, never got a response.
I didn't really expect that the Governor would, himself, take the time to write, but it seemed entirely reasonable to expect that someone in the office was responsible for replying to correspondence he received from the people of Vermont.
"But that was Douglas," I thought, confidently. Peter Shumlin would be more engaged.
A few months ago, I got to thinking about whom the new governor might appoint to the District 6 Commission to review Act 250 applications. On the Natural Resource Board website, the terms of the current members were posted, and two had been scheduled to expire in January of 2011. As there was no update, I assumed no action had yet been taken and quickly sent off a concerned question about this in the "Ask the Governor" interface on his website. In my haste, I made the erroneous assumption that this was the one-and-only way to contact the Governor electronically, because It had been so when I attempted to e-mail Governor Douglas several years earlier.
It was only after I hit "send" that I discovered this interface was soley for questions Governor Shumlin could answer by video, and a conventional e-mail was provided elsewhere on the site. Nevertheless, I felt confident that whoever screens those e-mail questions would have the good sense to forward it to the appropriate reader or quickly shoot me a redirect reply.
With other fish to fry, I forgot about it for a few weeks. Then I checked on the NRB website again and discovered that new appointments had already been made to the District 6 Commission, including the re-appointment of Dan Luneau, about whom I had specifically raised conflict of interest concerns in my e-mailed question.
Allowing the benefit of the doubt to the Governor, since I had expressed my concerns in the wrong electronic medium, I wrote the following letter and posted it by certified mail on May 31:
As I step back onto the merry-go-round following a two-week hiatus, I want to take a moment to say "good-bye" to St. Albans Zoning Administrator, Jim Tischler who is leaving after too few months in transformative service to the Rail City.
I'm not known for having fond words to say about City administrators, but Mr. Tischler has broken the mold.
Barely two short years ago, in a moment of remarkable clarity, the City hired Jim to disentangle the rats' nest that City zoning had become after years of mismanagement and neglect. What they got in the bargain was a skilled visionary who would plot a course of rebirth for the troubled City through enlightened planning and responsible development.
The new atmosphere of exploration in the City seems even more promising, as Mayor Marty Manahan will be stepping down in 2012, and popular Democrat Liz Gamache has announced her candidacy for the office. Liz has plenty of City experience, having served in several capacities including as interim City Manager. She is currently chairing the downtown revitalization effort and is therefore a natural to further Mr. Tischler's ambitious agenda for civic rebirth. Sometimes our prayers do seem to be answered!
Not surprisingly, Mr. Tischler has now been given the opportunity to apply his planning strategies on a much grander scale, to his home state of Michigan; and it must be admitted that they need him even more than we do.
It remains to be seen whether the (few?) visionaries in City government who supported his efforts here can maintain the momentum he has created. St. Albans' power structure is still primarily in the heavy hands of those who have no faith that the City can be anything more than a drive-through to big-box shopping at exit 20 in the Town.
Before departing, Mr. Tischler launched his legacy to the City with a three day public forum, "Create St. Albans" to introduce interested citizens to a fresh concept in zoning which, if adopted, will mean a new era of rational growth and civic planning. Referred to as "Form Based" zoning, this approach has the potential to preserve what is best and most appealing about a traditional small town plan while facilitating ease of permitting for appropriate development. The objective is to maintain public engagement in an harmonious, human-scale environment of mixed uses.
Best of luck to Jim Tischler in his Michigan endeavors; and here's hoping his efforts in St. Albans have taken firm root, to flower in the years to come.
I think we must take a moment to speak "Hallelujah!," or at least "hallelujah" for a small act of humanity, not to mention common sense, on the part of Vermont's esteemed legislators: medical marijuana is legal at last.
It couldn't have come in a more appropriate month, as far as I am concerned. June means Father's Day, and my father was a glaucoma sufferer, way back in the 1960's.
My parents had met on a train in the middle of America at the end of the Second World War. Mother, an Army nurse, and Dad, a lowly private were already a little longer-of-tooth than most young sweethearts of the day.
From what I've been told, it was love at first sight.
By the time they were mustered-out and could finally marry, having us kids became job one, as women approaching 40 and gentlemen older than that were not thought to be prime parent material. So my sister and I arrived, just twenty-one months apart, and proceeded to keep their lives interesting through the fifties, ratcheting-things up somewhat in the turbulent sixties.
Both bore it like troopers; but most surprising was the adaptability of my Dad, who had been raised a staunch Roman Catholic on a farm in central Illinois. Whether it was his disappointment at being unable to utilize a scholarship to teacher's college, witnessing his family lose their farm, or surviving the Great Depression by working odd jobs for food; something set a decidedly progressive engine rumbling beneath his conservative roots.
When I was seventeen, he began pressure drops for previously undetected glaucoma. Despite the fact that both my Dad and my mother were working, we didn't have a lot of money, so we went to the neighborhood dentist, the neighborhood GP, and the neighborhood eye doctor...whom we learned too late was just a trained optician with delusions of grandeur. Once detected by a legitimate ophthalmologist, Dad's glaucoma didn't respond well to drops, so surgery was required.
While he was still struggling on the drops, however, my bold big sister ventured to tell him about new evidence suggesting that marijuana could provide some relief! Now keep in mind that this was around 1968, by which time the whole nation had taken to hyperventilating about the evils of "grass." Nevertheless, my straight-arrow blue-collar Dad simply thanked her for the suggestion and joked, "I think I have enough bad habits."
So here's to all the glaucoma sufferers and cancer patients in Vermont who will soon be able to step up to a local dispensary in broad daylight, and legally get the simple relief that has so long been denied to them...and here's to my darling Dad.
Where are all the women in government here in Franklin County? You certainly see enough of them behind desks, working for a wage, maintaining the functional underpinnings of every day life in our towns and villages.
How often have we heard: "things would fall apart around here without her?"
But where are the women in elected and appointed government positions? Though they represent half of the county's population, you can count the number of women in those positions on a single hand. The bigger the town, the more conspicuous the absence of female participation.
The City of St. Albans has an all-male city council, and an all-male planning commission. Yet, at a recent council meeting we heard how invaluable and versatile has been the thirty-year service of, Jane Kiser, the paid Community Development Manager.
"Things would fall apart around here without her."
The Town of St. Albans has an all-male selectboard, an all male development review board, and with the notable exception of Chairwoman Cheryl Teague, an all-male planning commission. Cheryl is something of a marvel IMHO, for her unwavering intellect, patience and tact.
The story is very much the same in Swanton. Women occasionally crop-up among officials in some of the smaller towns of Franklin County, but they remain a dismal few. They serve on development review boards, which are, for the most part, charged with enforcing the decisions made by higher officials.
(Rethinking the role prisons should play in Vermont was a central theme of the Democratic campaign for governor, so it is appropriate to keep the conversation going even as we face other challenges. - promoted by Sue Prent)
The only way to close the revolving prison door is to open another one.
While I am quite tired of the "War on [insert social problem]" formulation, it's still good to see the governor working on an issue he spoke about on the campaign trail:
Shumlin joined lawmakers and judicial branch officials to highlight efforts to lower the number of people who return to prison after being released by stepping up addiction treatment, mental health counseling and other services for nonviolent offenders.
Shumlin's opponent last election tried to demagogue on this, and barely failed to scare enough Vermonters overall though he handily won our county, where there is a correctional facility, by roughly 2:1. I appreciated the governor's not-entirely-original idea to reduce costs in corrections by reducing the nonviolent offender population and reinvesting savings in early education.
Reducing recidivism saves us a great deal of money in the short- and long-term. As the Freep article I link to notes, it costs about $48k/yr to incarcerate versus $6500 for supervision. Fiscally-responsible governance demands we do all we can to keep offenders from returning to prison.
And from a moral and security perspective, it also makes a great deal of sense. How can any citizen exercise their full measure of human rights if we set them up to fail after releasing them? And how can our communities be safe if we have ticking timebombs wandering around with no moderating, mitigating forces to help them walk the straight and narrow?
As several people have raised question about the 5% administrative fee I mention in the latter part of this piece, I decided to contact Roger Marcoux of the Sheriff's Association for clarification. His response is now posted in comments __________________________________________________________
I bring these stories of Franklin County municipal monkey-business to the GMD community both to entertain you and as object lessons in how far out of whack the local process can become when citizens don't keep their hands upon the throttle.
The melodrama over the St. Albans Town policing contract continues to unfold. Sheriff Robert Norris is now suing the City of St. Albans for "predatory pricing" practices and is seeking an injunction to prevent the Town's contract with the City from going into effect.
As you may recall, the Town Selectboard voted by a margin of 3 to 2 to award that contract to the City of St. Albans, whose bid for the job came in at one-million dollars less than the Sheriff's bid.
There was a general rhubarb raised over this decision by the Sheriff and his merry band, egged-on by Selectboard Chair Bill Nihan who had flip-flopped to the pro-Sheriff side in time to represent one of the two dissenting votes, after initially saying he supported awarding the contract to the City. But then, it was coming up to election time, and Mr. Nihan needed those pro-sheriff voters in order to squeak by for re-lection... which he did, by just twelve ballots.
In the previous election, he had barely made it by two votes; and we are now learning that those two ballots may be presumed to have been from his two sons who live and work in New York City (in the financial industry, of course), as they have apparently been routinely voting in St. Albans for years despite little to suggest that they ever lived here! According to the Messenger, the voter status of those two junior Nihans is currently under investigation. But that's another story for another time...
There was also a star-turn by the Town Manager, Christine Murphy, who, we are led to believe, took it upon herself to approach the Sheriff for a new, lower bid after the Selectboard had already voted to award the contract to the City.
I've seen video-tape of the Selectboard meeting following this indiscretion, and came away with the distinct impression that someone put her up to it. It was, to put it mildly, a complete circus, stage-managed on the eve of the Town Meeting vote to bring out the Sheriff's supporters and get them to the polls.
The Sheriff is alleging that the difference between the City's original price quote for services, given in 2007, and the one given in 2010 is evidence of price-fixing. Says the Sheriff, the City is trying to monopolize police services. This, despite the fact that, according to the Messenger, the Sheriff's office currently provides coverage for 62% of Franklin County's population and the City only serves 15%. Even with the City holding the new contract for Town policing, the Sheriff's share of the county pie will only be reduced to 50%, while the City's share would rise to 28%.
After eight years of controversy, appeals of the permit for a proposed Walmart at exit 20 of I-89 in St. Albans Town had a final half-hour of oral arguments before the Vermont Supreme Court this past Wednesday at the Vermont Law School in S. Royalton.
The room was packed with about a hundred spectators. As if to illustrate our claim that the local permit review process had been contaminated by conspicuous and persistent conflicts of interest, former Town Selectboard Chairman, Bill Nihan, took his seat in the front row, cheek-to-jowel with applicant Jeff Davis of JLD Properties, his attorney Stewart McConaughy, and project engineer Sam Ruggiano.
Mr. Nihan has been a consistent figure in Town government throughout the Walmart saga, even popping-up on the special "Ad-Hoc Committee" that was formed by the Northwest Regional Planning Commission, under pressure from the Town, to "reconsider" Davis' Walmart project after the usual NRPC Project Review Committee had rejected it. Not surprisingly, that "Ad-Hoc Committee," under the heavy thumb of Mr. Nihan and friends, returned a decision favorable to the project. But Mr. Nihan does not even play a minor role in our assertions of a tainted process.
In fact, the pattern of conflicts of interest throughout the process was so widespread and insidious that former VNRC attorney Jon Groveman was forced to narrowly focus on the most egregious examples (due to filing limits on the number of words in the written arguments.)
The abundant evidence of conflicts of interest that was included in the written arguments was not wasted on the Supreme Court justices who peppered attorneys from both sides with many questions on the issue. Everyone, even the attorney for JLD, seemed to finally agree upon the existence of those conflicts. What remained to be evaluated was the validity of the applicant's assertion that, since the Environmental Court hearing (the venue for our appeal of the Act 250 decision) was considered "de novo," meaning a new look at the evidence, contamination of the local permit process was unimportant.
As VNRC's Jared Margolis very ably argued, if the Supremes were to accept this view of the local permit process, it would send an appalling message that corruption could simply be overlooked; and it would have a "chilling effect" on concerned citizens' access to that process. If those citizens did not possess the financial means to appeal a local decision to the Environmental Court, they would simply be deprived of their right to a fair hearing.
Sure as Town Meeting comes to pass every year, Marilyn Hackett gets another virtual slap in the face from her righteous neighbors in Franklin. After ten years, this time will likely be the last, since Ms. Hackett has finally resolved to sue the municipality to have them remove a Christian invocation from the agenda of the next Town Meeting...and she will most likely win.
As anyone who read my post on the issue this time last year may recall, she hasn't come to this decision easily or quickly.
Alleging a violation of Vermont's Constitution and the state's Public Accommodations Act, the Vermont branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed suit against the Town of Franklin and moderator Tim Magnant for repeatedly opening Franklin's town meeting with a Christian prayer.
Maintaining that the Town's persistent disregard for Ms. Hackett's beliefs is in violation of the Public Accommodations Act, attorneys are seeking an end to the annual prayers, recovery of damages and associated legal fees.
Each year Ms. Hackett requests that the invocation be dropped from the agenda in deference to her personal beliefs. She doesn't proselytize and asks only that her right to fully participate in Town Meeting without the imposition of publicly led prayer be respected. Each year, the Town Moderator defies both Ms. Hackett and the letter of the law by opening the meeting with a Christian prayer led by Rev. Jason McConnell. The current Town Moderator is Tim Magnant.
A previous Moderator, Hugh Gates, addressed her complaint by "inviting" anyone objecting to the prayer to leave the room. This was an invitation that Ms. Hackett found considerably less than accommodating. Once, the assembly even took a vote, by a show of hands, on whether or not to allow the prayer; but, as Ms. Hackett rightly observed, you can't vote away another person's rights under the law.
If you've ever wondered what Republican reps from Franklin County do with their time in the Statehouse, your puzzling days are over! Judging soley from a resolution that recently came to my attention, it would seem that they pretty much concentrate on the work of getting themselves re-elected.
Now before I go any further with this, I am obliged to remind you that I am an active member of the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth. We're the grassroots group that has, for almost eighteen years, diligently maintained opposition to the proposed location of what would be the state's largest Walmart on a tract of agricultural land, near the border of St. Albans Town.
Appearing in the Tuesday, January 18 Journal of the House, J.R.H. 7, the "Joint resolution in support of the construction of a Walmart store in St. Albans Town," must be a high priority for sponsoring representatives Dickinson (St. Albans Town), Branagan (Georgia), McAllister (Highgate), Pearce (Richford), Perley (Enosburg), Savage (Swanton)...and my own local rep and new next-door neighbor, Dustin Degree. With all the serious budgetary, healthcare, education, energy and infrastructure issues that the Legislature faces this term, the best use this bunch could find for their elected office was to advocate on behalf of an out-of-state retailer in a vainglorious attempt to...to do what exactly?
The issue of whether the store will or will not be permitted is currently under consideration by the Supreme Court of Vermont. No other official entity has any say in the matter at this point, so their resolution is utterly meaningless...just a red herring they can wave at their Walmart-deprived constituents come re-election time. "End the wait for Walmart" is a favorite Republican campaign theme in these parts. In a letter-to-the-editor a couple of years ago, Lynn Dickinson even went so far as to imply that electing her could somehow clear the way for Walmart! I remember responding that she should familiarize herself with the way the legal system works in this state.
To our Republican reps I have this piece of advice: If you have so much free time on your hands, when next the county is embroiled in a controversial permit debate that goes on for years, you mightshow up at one or two of the hearings before you start drafting resolutions on topics you know nothing about, as is evidenced by the text of your resolution, which shows a fundamental ignorance of the factual evidence and of how the project lines-up with the ten criteria of Act 250.
C'mon Franklin County Republicans, is this the best use you can make of your time in office?
250-1
55-1
