So today’s the big day, where Democrats in Burlington caucus and choose their candidate for mayor. If nobody was going to stream the event, I was going up there to do so for GMD, but since VPR is going for it (link), I’ll probably stay home.

But it’s also a moment of truth of sorts for Seven Days, the Burlington newsweekly. Seven Days garners a lot of its readership due to its political coverage, and that coverage of this particular race has, of course, brought about this disclaimer which has become a regular feature on its letters page:

Full Disclosure

State Sen. Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden), a candidate in the Burlington mayoral race, is the domestic partner of Seven Days publisher and coeditor Paula Routly. Routly is not assigning or editing stories or columns about Burlington politics for the duration of the campaign. Seven Days staffer Andy Bromage now has that role.

It’s always been a point of tension, made even more difficult by the fact that Seven Days works not simply to cover local politics, but tries to be provocative. It’s been an issue – and a point of much murmuring – with Ashe the city councilor, Ashe the state senatorial candidate, and Ashe the state senator. But Ashe the mayoral candidate was apparently the breaking point, of sorts, bringing forth a more comprehensive and ongoing disclaimer.

The truth is, it has always been more of a conflict of interest/editorial integrity issue than Routly and Seven Days have wanted to acknowledge. It’s more of an issue now than this small disclaimer can cover – after all, we’re not simply talking about a reporter, or even just an editor, we’re talking about a publisher in Routly. A founder. An owner.

I’m not bringing this up to beat up on Seven Days. Nor would I suggest that their coverage of the mayor’s race has been inappropriate – it’s been good, fair, and even-handed, so far as I can tell. I’ve both beat up on Seven Days and sung its praises in the past. In this case I’m doing neither. In fact, I feel for the folks up there and have no good sense of how they should handle this conundrum.  

It’s hard to imagine Seven Days of all places simply choosing not to cover the mayoral race – or the State Senate. And yet, I’ll be dammed if I can come up with an alternative solution that satisfies the demands of basic journalistic and institutional integrity and not just in the abstract ethical context. In the concrete sense of the credibility of the 7 Days brand – everything and anything written that is positive or complimentary about Ashe in any political context on the pages of 7 Days is already looked upon with automatic skepticism by readers of all political stripes in my experience (and anything negative is likely questioned as well, in a reverse-psychological sense).

If it wasn’t already, that little disclaimer will be woefully inadequate should Ashe become the Democratic nominee for mayor today.

Should Ashe actually become mayor of Burlington, forget it – it’s virtually impossible to imagine any way Seven Days can cover Burlington politics with any credibility.

And I feel bad for them. What’s Ashe supposed to do, ditch his ambitions? What’s Routly supposed to do, ditch her career?

It sucks, but there it is (might be interesting for commenters to brainstorm solutions…).

It may not matter. Ashe is likely to start the voting with a plurality, but will probably not make it to the nomination stage due to the runoff voting system, which will allow votes of the other three to coalesce against him.

The fact is, Ashe losing today could well be the best thing that could happen to Seven Days.

Of course, he could then run as a Prog or and Independent anyway…

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the Citizens United decision he authored:

“With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions.”  

Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits and citizens can see whether elected officials are in the pocket of so-called moneyed interests.

Wonder how that is working so far?

Reports about a study conducted by the Sustainable Investments Institute titled Analysis Counts More Companies with “No Spending” Policies, but Reveals Inconsistencies Between What Companies Say and What They Do shows early trends among S&P 500 companies since the game changing Citizens United decision.

It was found that the number of companies with declared policies on corporate oversight of direct spending jumped to 24% from 14% a year ago, but only 14% of S&P 500 companies actually give a numerical report on how much of their trade association dues are spent for political purposes.

In addition the study uncovered inconsistencies between companiesʼ stated political expenditure policies and what is actually spent. Fifty-seven of S&P 500 companies state they will not make political contributions, up from just 40 in 2010. But an in-depth search of federal and state records shows that only 23 of these companies actually refrained from giving to candidates, parties, political committees and ballot measures in 2010.  

So policies are proliferating but well less than half of the companies with stated political expenditure policies actually followed their own guidelines.

Other findings include:

• The percentage of political spending coming from groups that do not disclose their donors has risen from 1 percent to 47 percent since the 2006 midterm elections

• political spending by 501c-designated  non-profits increased from zero percent of total spending by outside groups in 2006 to 42 percent in 2010.

• Outside interest groups spent more on election season political advertising than party committees for the first time in at least two decades, besting party committees by about $105 million.  

• The amount of independent expenditure and electioneering communication spending by outside groups has quadrupled since 2006.

• Seventy-two percent of political advertising spending by outside groups in 2010 came from sources that were prohibited from spending money on political ads or campaigns in 2006  

But let’s remember what Justice Kennedy confidently imagined:

“With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions.”

 

Sure, prompt disclosure of political expenditures, unless corporations want to hide them or not follow their own policies at all or just not bother to because, well because they can.

Money equals “free” speech and “corporations are people, my friend.”

(In the interests of non-partisanship and fairness, since Maggie’s pro-Bram Kranichfeld endorsement made the front page. Burlington Democrats gather at 1 pm at Memorial Auditorium to select a candidate. – promoted by NanuqFC)

I’m enthusiastically supporting Miro Weinberger for mayor. I’ve known Miro for 15 years.

I trust Miro’s judgment, experience and values. We met through our work to create affordable housing and jobs for formerly homeless individuals. Miro pairs an uncommon combination of hands-on experience in finance and business management with a demonstrated commitment to serving our most vulnerable citizens.

Our city very much needs Miro’s expertise in finance right now. Without addressing our financial challenges, we can’t move forward. Miro has proven that he cares deeply about the issues that are important to me: education; a just, diverse and healthy community; affordable housing and sustainable economic development.

From advisory committees, to commissions and non-profit boards, Miro has served Burlington in many ways that will be important to our future — and has developed the knowledge and relationships to help us realize our shared hopes for Burlington at its Best. I tremendously respect Miro’s thoughtful and skilled leadership. Miro is a trustworthy leader who possesses the qualifications our city needs.

This unique combination of values and experience puts Miro in the best position to win the general election in March. Please join me in electing Miro as the Democratic nominee.

The story in Saturday’s Burlington Free Press on the aftermath of Josh Pfenning’s apparent suicide in the Occupy encampment in City Hall Park was reasonably well done.

Except one thing:

Today, a joint decision by the mayor, public safety and human rights officials that all tents must be removed from the encampment offers new challenges.

[emphasis added]

If you read through the whole 47 paragraphs, no “human rights officials” are identified or quoted.

How would anyone know from this story who those unnamed “human rights officials” would be? The ACLU? The state-level Human Rights Commission? How would any reader know what role these unnamed human rights officials played in the decision to shut down the camp?

Meanwhile, the inclusion of the phrase gives a certain moral legitimacy and cover to the actions of police and city government officials in evicting the protestors.

In a callback to the voicemail I left him, Robert Appel, Executive Director of the Human Rights Commission, said he’d been consulted. He said he was called originally by someone from the Occupiers, who reached him via Burlington Police Chief Mike Schirling. “I spoke to the Mayor,” Appel said, “and I reviewed the statement, but I did not endorse it. … I suggested that they tell everyone concerned ahead of time what they were going to do” about access to the park. “Mike wanted my name in there, and yes, I reviewed it, but I did not endorse it.”

In an email, Appel wrote to Police Chief Schirling:

By adding the threat of felony prosecution for what actions are yet to be fully defined, I cannot endorse the statement. However you may add my name and title with the statement

“reviewed and approved as to form as enforcement agencies are giving clear notice of their announced changes to enforcing applicable city ordinances “

Oh, and btw, “No one from the Free Press called me,” Appel said in his phone conversation with me.

Let me be clear: I am not expressing the opinion that the police have acted wrongly – in fact, other than getting pushy with Occupiers “near” the police crime scene tape, [and getting censorious with the press covering the scene]* the BPD has been circumspect. I am asking whether and, if so, why the journos have allowed their story to enhance the public perception of the police and city government’s moral legitimacy in their actions without specific information.

I emailed both reporters Saturday morning, asking similar questions.

John Briggs sent this response a few hours later:

Thanks for your note. I didn’t report that portion of the story, but my understanding is that the head of the state’s Human Rights Commission did agree with the police decision. You’re quite right that should have been clear in the story.

After my prompting to “do something” about that unexplained reference, John Briggs emailed that he has “notified an editor to get a clarification in the paper Sunday naming the official.”

* [added 4 hours after the original post]

Update: Briggs authored a clarification in today’s edition of the BFP, on the jump page (p. 7A). He quoted the statement and spelled out Vermont HRC Director Robert Appel’s involvement.

In a Time of Universal Deceit, TELLING the TRUTH Is a Revolutionary Act. ~ George Orwell  

Undeterred by nuclear catastrophe in Japan, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is racing to approve a new model of reactor, the Westinghouse-Toshiba  AP1000, that is being constructed right now in China, and is on track for licensing to operate at several locations in the southeastern U.S.

Analysis of the Fukushima disaster has yielded 40-pages of concerns that experts conclude should be addressed in new reactor designs, but the NRC is not insisting that the manufacturer incorporate any improvements relative to those concerns in the AP 1000 before licensing.

The NRC has yet to certify the design, but two plants in Georgia and S. Carolina are pushing for swift approval. Despite the fact that there is no immediate need for the energy these plants would provide, and that it will only be available at a higher cost than rate-payers currently enjoy,  the new plants are being sold as “job-creators;” so pressure to “fast-track” licensing is tremendous.

If the NRC’s past behavior is any predictor, approval of the design, without modification, will be swift.

In fact, the NRC dismisses concern that Fukushima-related modifications have not been made to the design by saying, in essence, that we can worry about all that later but must make licensing them to operate the immediate priority.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to detect the folly in this approach, so it is hardly surprisingly that Fairewinds Associates’ Arnie Gundersen doesn’t think it’s a very good idea.

The AP1000 Oversight Group has retained Fairewinds  to take a look at the new design relative to the findings of concern at Fukushima; and Fairewind’s newest video analysis summarizes their conclusions.

In it, Arnie cites six specific areas in which the design has significant short-comings, especially in light of new evidence provided by the real experiences at Fukushima.  

Among those short-comings is the minimal tolerance allowed between what the AP1000 containment has been designed to withstand and the theoretical predictions that were the untested standard before Fukushima.  Those predictions have already been demonstrated in Japan to have been woefully inadequate.  

To put it simply, it is recognized that there is insufficient margin for failure designed into the AP1000 containment, but the NRC does not intend to require Westinghouse to correct this fault before licensing the new reactors to operate.

This deficiency alone should have sent the whole thing back to the drawing board, but there are a number of other equally concerning issues.  

Watch the whole video; then if you really want to get to the nuts and bolts, read the full report, posted on Fairewinds’ website.

Fukushima and Its Impact Upon the Westinghouse-Toshiba Designed AP1000 Atomic Power Plant from Fairewinds Associates on Vimeo.

The Democratic Mayoral Caucus on Sunday at 1pm at Memorial Auditorium will be an historical event in Burlington.  All four candidates are well educated and enthusiastic, and somewhere between 1200 and 2000 voters are expected to turn out for this key city event.

Odum, you were right and I was wrong.  A Democratic Primary really does raise the bar! [See my comments below the fold.]  We have talented candidates campaigning on real issues with concrete plans and facts to move this city beyond its current malaise.

It is not easy choosing one candidate from this able group, but I am voting for Bram Kranichfeld for Burlington’s Democratic candidate for Mayor.  

While Bram is the youngest of the four democratic candidates, I believe he offers the broadest background and has the most experience on city issues.  Raised for the first five years of his life in Dummerston, VT, and married to Erin Kranichfeld from Montpelier, Bram brings energy, vitality, and compassion to this race.  I believe that Bram’s Vermont sensibility rooted in his upbringing and his real world large city financial experience will help the City of Burlington move away from its Burlington Telecom debacle and several other questionable city ventures.  

I think Bram will bring positive energy, top-notch management skills, experience running for office, current experience in city government, top financial skills, the ability to communicate well with the city’s diverse population, and a balance of tenacity and compassion.  As a homeowner in Burlington’s Old North End, Bram understands the challenges facing our diverse city.

Please join me in support Bram Kranichfeld as the Democratic candidate for Mayor! See why below the fold.  Caucus Rules and Regulations also below the fold.

If Burlington is going to dig itself out of its current fiscal hole created during the Kiss administration, it needs sound leadership and familiarity with a wide array of challenging city issues.  

   •As the former chair of the Burlington Electric Commission, prior to his election to City Council, Bram has shown able leadership and an understanding of the complicated legal structure of electric regulation, finances of rate structure, and necessity of keeping Burlington Electric Department one of the greenest city portfolios in the country.  Burlington Electric offers our city reasonable electric rates in an environmentally sound manner.  It is a valuable city asset that will draw business to Burlington.

   •Bram is electable.  He ran for City Council in a Progressive stronghold and won – and he was re-elected.  Bram knows how to campaign, how to debate, and how to answer journalists’ questions with openness and transparency.

   •As a prosecutor, Bram understands safe cities first hand.  I met Bram through my work as a mediator and paralegal.   Criminal activity and vandalism use valuable and finite city resources.  Burlingon must find real solutions for the constant influx of crime originating from endemic poverty and teen and student high jinks.  Bram understands the necessity of using funds to incarcerate real criminals – murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc, while applying limited fiscal resources toward treatment via the mental health court or drug court.  The Restorative Justice Panels or withholding grades from students who repeatedly violate Burlington’s noise ordinance are valid solutions appealing to all city residents who want to enjoy the quality of life Burlington offers.

   •Burlington’s schools need mayoral support and Bram is invested in better schools for Burlington.  Good schools build a vibrant communities.  Bram’s wife Erin is teacher educated at UVM and their children will be educated in Burlington’s schools.  

   •We need an investment in businesses grounded in the public/private partnership among the colleges and local businesses as Bram plans.  I am a local business owner.  I have been unable to find the skilled interns my business requires to grow.  The business community needs real mayoral leadership to make this happen.

   •Bram is an experienced city councilor.  He will not have to spend time getting up to speed on the city’s issues.  I know.  As a public works commissioner, I have met with Bram on a number of public health and safety issues.  He knows every issue inside and out.  

   •And lastly, we need fiscal accountability and transparency in the mayor’s office.  Bram has several years of experience reading balance sheets and coping with complicated financial transactions on Wall Street in addition to his thorough understanding of the legal issues and litigation facing Burlington.  How else will Burlington get out of the Burlington Telecom debacle without attempting a fire sale of valuable city assets like the Burlington Electric Department – as one mayoral candidate has proposed?  I’d like to see us get back our AAA Bond rating that has been lost during the last six years.

In full disclosure, I am serving my fourth year as a Burlington Public Works Commissioner appointed by Burlington City Council prior to Bram’s tenure on the council.  Public Works oversees roads, sidewalks, water quality and supply, city sewers, code enforcement, maintenance of all city vehicles, speed limits, crossing times, safe streets, bicycle and pedestrian regulations and city parking garages, meters, and regulations. I’ve probably left out a few things.  I’ve seen first hand what happens when a city mayor does not understand city government and does not know how to govern.  

I hope to see you on Sunday exercising our right to participate in the Democratic process.To my way of thinking Burlington’s Democratic Mayoral Campaign and Caucus has been an amazing unfolding of the Democratic process.  For once, Burlington’s mayoral campaign has been substantive and not vitriolic hyperbole.

As a Veterans Day tribute, I’m embedding the 2009 documentary entitled “The War at Home,” made by Norwich University Communications Students. It’s an effective and moving film (despite the intrusive and relentless background music you have to deal with) made up entirely of interviews with veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Well worth a watch – even of just a part of it, if that’s all you have time for.

War at Home, The (59 min.} from Norwich Television on Vimeo.

Friday November 11, 2011, 3:07 PM

Burlington, VT Police Department

Advisory: City Hall Park Updates – 2 messages

Burlington Police Nixle Website

INVESTIGATION UPDATE:

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.  

Preliminary information from witnesses at the scene indicates that the gunshot wound was self-inflicted. However, this is an ongoing investigation and all investigative avenues will be explored. Besides Mr. Pfenning, there were 3 others inside the tent when this occurred. We remain in search of another person who we believe was a direct witness to this event.

At the moment the investigation has revealed that prior to the fatal event, Mr. Pfenning had been consuming a large quantity of alcohol. At some point just prior to the fatal shot, Mr. Pfenning had pointed the gun and threatened another person inside the tent where this occurred. The gun that is believed to have been involved in this event was found at the scene and is in our custody. The handgun was determined to have been stolen from a dwelling in Derby, Vermont in 2009.

There were early unconfirmed reports Mr. Pfenning was a military veteran, it has been learned that he was discharged from the Army after approximately 2 weeks into boot camp for medical and other reasons.

The autopsy was conducted this morning and we await a final report from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner which generally takes several weeks.

We ask that anyone that has any direct information relative to this investigation to contact Detective James Trieb, 802-540-2251.

GENERAL UPDATE:

Informational Release

November 11, 2011

City Hall Park Occupation Status

Deputy Chief Higbee has discussed the current status of the investigation. I would like to simply reiterate our condolences to the family and friends of Mr. Pfenning in the wake of this tragedy.

Regarding the current status of the City’s position regarding the Occupy Burlington protesters.

Last night Mayor Kiss and I met with the group’s general assembly for some time discussing the current state of the issues and answering questions. As you know at one point the group became fragmented and we spent time continuing the dialog with the group even as conditions in the park were becoming contentious.

The message relayed yesterday holds true today as well.

First and foremost, it is important to give due respect to the victim of this tragedy, and the investigation that must occur. As such the police department has serious and complicated work to do to ensure that all aspects of this investigation are conducted thoroughly and professionally. Among the issues this raises is the need to maintain control of the “crime” scene while preliminary investigation is in progress. This is complicated by the nature of the scene here – a park in which a makeshift encampment exists. Until we are fully confident that all possible investigative avenues have been expended we must maintain control of that area of the park and it will be closed until further notice.

We are able to release property/tents from that area after they have been cleared of any possible involvement. This has been done several times today on request of the property/tent owners. Please note that it is only done, at this time, at the request and with the consent of the owners. Anyone with property or a tent in the crime scene area is encouraged to remove it. To do so, please go to the park and meet with the officers stationed there. It is also important to note that the Street Outreach Team has been present in the Park throughout the last two weeks offering services to those who may be in need. That has continued through this morning.

As you know, the City took a wait and see approach to the occupation of City Hall Park. Yesterday at 2:07 p.m. the safety landscape was altered substantially. Prior to yesterday afternoon there was no way to reasonably foresee that this level of risk would occur in the encampment. Now there is. As a result of this investigation we know that at least one weapon has been present in the encampment and we are now clear that there has been extensive consumption of alcohol and some use of drugs by some of those present in the camp. The presence of structure/tents creates an enhanced risk by virtue of the activity that can and is occurring inside them. This risk simply cannot be managed by the encampment facilitators or police under the current circumstances. These challenges, as underscored by events in other parts of the country, are not unique to Burlington.

We have communicated that we believe the tents will need to be removed to ensure the safety of those involved in the protest, the public, and our law enforcement officers. We will continue conversations late today with the occupy Burlington general assembly in hopes of resolving these concerns swiftly.

It is important to note that this is about balance. We fully recognize the need to foster an environment in which lawful protest can occur. As such, since the outset the City has clearly offered to make the Park available for lawful protest activities between 6 am and midnight, when the Park is open. That offer continues. We must now balance the safety issues that have become so vivid in the last 24 hours with the need to enable free speech. Our assessment, is that, absent an option that no-one has brought forward, the presence of tents is no longer safe.

To date, save for a few issues that arose last night, the relationship between the City/police and the protest movement has been mutually respectful. We are committed to maintaining that respectful relationship in an effort to balance these issues.

It is important to note, however, that while the vast majority of those in the occupy movement in Burlington seem committed to this balance and have been a valued partner through this shared experience, there are a few that have now demonstrated a willingness to incite the larger group to impede lawful actions on the part of the police, and even seeded conversations about occupying buildings, taking over the current crime scene, or becoming intentionally antagonistic toward law enforcement. For those who impede lawful actions by law enforcement to include making physical contact with police officers in an effort to incite violence, that conduct will not be tolerated and you will face felony level criminal charges. Police presence is to ensure the right of some to protest and the safety of those present in the park and the larger community. We have been and will continue to be transparent in our operations. We will not, however, put officers at risk and allow conduct to deteriorate as a result of the actions of a few people.

We are hopeful that we will successfully balance the need for safety with the presence of the movement in City Hall Park in the very near term.

For full details, view this message on the web.

Sent by Burlington, VT Police Department, 1 North Ave, Burlington, VT 05401

To manage your email settings, click here. To update your account settings, login here.

Powered by . © 2011 Nixle, LLC. All rights reserved.

If you're on Senator Leahy's e-mail list you might have received this e-mail from Senator Leahy:

I've got great news to report: Today, by a 10-8 vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation that would repeal DOMA and ensure the equality of all state-sanctioned marriages!

This is an historic milestone in our ongoing fight for freedom and equality. But we're not done yet. Next, the Respect for Marriage Act heads to the floor where I hope it will be debated and passed by the full Senate soon.

Six states, including Vermont, and the District of Columbia now recognize that all of their citizens have the freedom to marry, including same-sex couples. But because of DOMA, thousands of American families are being treated unfairly by the federal government. 

This is wrong — and we've got to change it. We must repeal DOMA to ensure the freedom and equality of all of our citizens. 

Thank you for your continued support in this critical fight.

Sincerely,

Patrick Leahy
U.S. Senator

Great news from Senator Leahy.

What happens from here? It's pretty obvious, right? The Republicans use the filibuster rule to block consideration of the legislation on the floor, once again demonstrating their anti-gay bigotry and their willingness to stand in the way of the will of the majority.

That, however, is progress.

I have no information on this besides what’s being reported. Witnesses are claiming this incident, which took place at 2:00 this afternoon, was a suicide, but according to WCAX, there’s no official word in that regard from police.

Here’s the basics from WCAX:

Occupy Vermont organizers and participants say the victim was very smart, though he didn’t have a whole lot to say and spoke through his actions. Organizers say they did not know the man had a gun. They said the group had made rules about not having alcohol or drugs at the park, but the issue of restricting guns had never come up because they didn’t think they needed to.

Reportedly, the man was known to other protesters, and fired the shot in one of the tents. His identity has not been reported.