Category Archives: local/regional

A Real-Life Act 46 Experience

local/regional, Uncategorized, , ,

Last night I attended a public forum at Saint Albans City School about the Franklin Central Supervisory Union’s consolidation plan. It was the first time I had seen one of the proposed plans in any detail and I have to say it was reassuring on a number of levels. Saint Albans City School board chair James Farr and Fairfield board member Michael L’Esperance did much of the presentation, along with other board members and Supervisory Union Superintendent Kevin Dirth.

1. The Boards and Administrators Get It

Act 46 has a lot more to do with achieving equity between towns, than it does dramatically decreasing property tax rates or school costs. While the Act 46 Committee did estimate nearly $250,000 in efficiency savings by consolidating into one districts, they were quick to point out that this is a conservative figure and that they don’t anticipate big savings from consolidation in the first year.

2.  The Smallest Town Has A Lot to Gain, But…

Fairfield has about 230 students and the proposed district will be about 2700 students. Saint Albans Messenger reporter Michelle Monroe pointed out that Fairfield has struggled the most with the current relationship between property tax rates and per pupil spending. The loss of a handful of students two years ago caused a 20 cent tax increase even though the school budget didn’t go up at all. The new district would spread the impact of population over all three communities (Saint Albans City, Saint Albans Town and Fairfield).

There will have to be equity in programming, class offerings and educational opportunity among the three elementary schools- and that’s the biggest opportunity for Fairfield in the new district. The hard part is that there will be 9 votes on the new consolidated School Board: 4 Town residents, 4 City residents and 2 Fairfield residents with 1/2 vote each. All members will be elected at-large, which means the two big towns will be able to elect the two Board members from the small town. That was a bit unnerving to some Fairfield residents, but Jim Farr was quick to say- “Every town has 9 votes representing them, we’re going to be one district.” Still, if voters in Fairfield choose to keep riding the tax roller coaster in order to maintain local control, then the plan will fall apart because all three towns must approve the plan for the merged district to be approved on Town Meeting Day.

The Act 46 Committee for Franklin Central S.U. presents their plan for a consolidated district to the public at a forum 12/02/2015

3. The Tax Savings Are Real…

… and those districts who don’t get the benefits by consolidating will end up paying for those benefits to other districts. For a Saint Albans City resident with a $200,000 home the 10 cent break on the penny rate in the first year will be worth about $200, and the projected savings over five incentivized years would be about $1000 for the owner of a $200,000 property in the City or Fairfield and over $1400 for the owner of a similar property in the Town. However given the fact that most homeowners pay based on income I don’t think that the majority of people will see a huge difference in their taxes because of this plan.

Act 46 is going to give the new district’s school board members flexibility and options they never have had  in our one-building-per-district model. We have four school districts and five boards that will now become one unit, with one budget- assuming that the plan is passed in March by all three towns. The transition is going to be tough, but as one City School board member told me after the meeting “we have actually already been working on this for years but none of the prior initiatives passed by the state had enough carrot or stick to work. The only part of act 46 I don’t like is the spending caps.”I imagine we’re not the only Supervisory Union in Vermont where that’s the case.

Time spent eating and drinking: Vermont stands out

local/regional, , ,

This is how Vermont stands out according to data from the Department of Labor’s 2010-2016 American Time Use Surveys. Governing Magazine online complied and mapped the bite sized pieces.

Vermonters spend an average of 1.3 hours per day eating and drinking, the most of any state. States on the opposite end of the spectrum are primarily concentrated in the South.

Data reflects all time spent eating or drinking regardless of location (including meals at home), except when completed as part of a work or volunteer activity.

leisure map 1In New England Massachusetts was closest eating and drinking 1.21 hours per day and out west Colorado came in at 1.22 hours per day.

 

But how about all that outdoorsy Vermonter stuff? Well, it seems we’re in the back of the pack in sports, exercise and recreation. Vermonters spend 0.33 hours per day and that is below our neighbor, New Hampshire at 0.42. Western states lead in this category with Alaska the highest at 0.61 hours per day and Wyoming next at 0.54.

Other data includes the state by state amount of time spent on income-generating activities. That estimate seems low but it includes those not working, so averages are lower than would be if only employed workers were counted.

Some fits neatly into longtime perceptions, such as Southerners spending more time on religious and civic activities. Almost neatly enough to wonder about confirmation bias-a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions. Probably check into that after a hike or lunch.

Syrian Refugees and Scar(e)city

International, local/regional, , , , ,

I’ve had occasion to spend some time driving around the state for work and I’ve been listening to reports on VPR about Syrian refugees- and our politicians responding to the situation. It’s been a divisive issue, with a few leaders stepping up to welcome refugees- like Governor Shumlin and President Obama– and a few leaders fanning the flames of fear- like Sen. Lindsey Graham, Gov. Bobby Jindhal, and our own Vermont Republican gubernatorial candidates.

The UN estimates there are over 4 million refugees from the civil war in Syria. Most of them are in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. In recent months tens of thousands of Syrian refugees have left crowded camps in the region and struck out for Europe- often paying smugglers to guide them on dangerous journeys across the Mediterranean. Many have died just trying to make the trip.

So what is our response? Many politicians have engaged in disgusting pandering and fear-mongering- including gubernatorial candidates Bruce Lisman and Lt. Governor Phil Scott. I applaud Gov. Shumlin for his leadership on this issue, and I was glad to see Matt Dunne making a strong statement of support for Vermont hosting Syrian refugees.

“I would have hoped that Phil [Scott] would be someone who would not just fall in line with the right-wing Republicans in Congress.”- Matt Dunne

President Obama has been making the case for welcoming Syrian refugees to the United States, but he was defied by 47 Democrats in the House who sided with Republicans in an effort to halt refugee resettlement in the wake of the attacks in Paris last week. It turns out the “Syrian” in the group of attackers probably wasn’t Syrian at all and was in the possession of a forged passport.

Over the last few weeks in my church, our pastor has been talking about moving out of an attitude of Scar(e)city into an attitude of Abundance. Is it good for us to protect what we have at the expense of our neighbors? Are we really willing to reject our obligations to other human beings when we have been blessed with so much? I can’t imagine that our free society, with all of its diversity, could be diminished by including a few thousand people who are fleeing a war-ravaged land. With all of the abundance in the United States of America, and here in Vermont, can we really turn away these refugees with a clear conscience?

My answer is emphatically no. We’ll all benefit from having open doors and open hearts in a world that has seen so much violence. If we turn our backs on Syrian refugees, like we did so many Jewish refugees fleeing the rise of the Third Reich in the late 1930s, we sacrifice all of the moral high ground and good will that we so often claim in the world.

I hope compassion wins out, and that we do take in a good number of Syrians who want safety and freedom and have had to wait, fight and sometimes die to have a chance to get it. We have so much to be thankful for in America, and in Vermont. How dare we pretend to live in a world of scarcity when our freedom, compassion and opportunities are so abundant?

Cultural Mysogyny and the Defense of Norm McAllister

local/regional, Uncategorized, ,

Well it appears that Norm McAllister may soon face his fellow Senators in an expulsion hearing initiated by fellow Republican Senator Joe Benning, who makes a very effective case for expulsion in this editorial.

It’s fairly clear from Senator Benning’s words that he appreciates the over-arching issue that too many still seem to ignore: Mr. McAllister admits to having sex with his teenaged employee.

That is just plain wrong.

The wrong is amplified by the fact that Mr. McAllister has sworn an oath to serve and protect his constituents, one of whom is that child.

Others, including his fellow Franklin County Republican senator, Dustin Degree, say they will support the expulsion, but only because Mr. McAllister, having earlier been stripped of his committee assignments, has lost his ability to effectively represent the interests of his constituents at the Statehouse.

Beyond that, Sen. Degree and others say that Mr. McAllister is “innocent” until proven guilty of the charges in a court of law.

That position ignores his own admission of having violated someone whom most of us would readily regard as a child.

Mr. McAllister apparently debates the exact age at which he began forcing himself on her, insisting that she was “at least sixteen;” but does that make it any less an act of abuse?

This reluctance to judge Mr. McAllister in the court of public opinion is very puzzling to me, since it is routinely done to less influential individuals under far less damning circumstances.

As a woman, I cannot help but wonder whether or not, if the young victim were male rather than female, outrage concerning the magnitude of Mr. McAllister’s admitted violation would be greater.

If Mr. McAllister had violated a sixteen year old boy who worked on his farm, I suspect he would have been publicly shunned as soon as the news became public.

As things now stand, Mr. McAllister feels free to stroll around the county fair as if nothing had happened, insisting on his innocence.  According to online comments, some people apparently wish to see him completely exonerated; they’re talking about ‘poor Norm McAllister’ and the injustice of it all.

Because his victim was a female there seems to be a question in some people’s minds as to whether or not what this 70-year old man did could technically be regarded as rape.

Something in the culture suggests to them that sixteen-year-old girls can give their consent to violation by employers who are old enough to be their grandfathers.

What that says about some of my neighbors I find truly disturbing.

Will McAllister Get the Heave-Ho?

local/regional,

Finally, someone within the Republican Party is stepping up to demand expulsion of their disgraced Franklin County Senator, Norm McAllister.

Citing disappointment that McAllister does not appear willing to live up to his promise to resign voluntarily by November 1, Sen. Joe Benning (R-Caledonia) says he will file a motion seeking McAllister’s expulsion on this coming Monday, November 2.

My first question is: why has it taken so long for anyone to show true leadership on the McAllister situation, when shockingly straightforward evidence that he violated community standards as well as his oath of office has been a matter of public record for months?

Almost equally pressing is the question of why it was left to a Republican from Caledonia county to administer the coup de gras.

Since McAllister’s indecencies were committed against Franklin County constituents and his refusal to resign made collateral victims of all Franklin County citizens, most especially Franklin County women, it was up to the Franklin County GOP to force McAllister out of the Senate without delay.

For Franklin County Republicans to just stand by for six months, wringing their hands ineffectually, speaks volumes about the leadership void the County suffers under Republican domination.

Franklin County’s only other state senator, Republican Dustin Degree was quoted in last Wednesday’s Messenger as saying he would vote to expel McAllister if it came to a vote.

The reason he gave had nothing to do with the fact that McAllister had sexually victimized at least two vulnerable women, nor that he had admitted to having sex with his teenaged ‘intern.’

“For me, it’s really about insuring the folks up our way have the representation they deserve, that they are constitutionally entitled to.”

The very next day, to Vermont Digger, Degree seemed to be singing a slightly different tune.

Degree revealed that he had opposed stripping McAllister of his committee assignments last spring in the wake of the freshly laid charges.

As for his constituents? Degree seemed largely ignorant of the disgust and outrage that I personally have witnessed percolating through the community among Democrats, Republicans and those who would bring a pox on both their houses.

“It’s a topic of conversation for some people, and there are certainly folks who are vehement on both sides,” Degree said. “I think a majority of folks are reserving judgement and seeing how the process plays out.”      

                                                                                                                                                                                
I have heard a lot of sound and fury about how he should be regarded as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and lacking conclusive public evidence of his violations in the form of recorded admissions of guilt, I would have certainly agreed.

However, we have that conclusive evidence from the telephone conversations recorded by States Attorney Jim Hughes in which McAllister discusses the acts and circumstances with two of the victims.

McAllister’s trial isn’t expected to take place before spring, and could very well be delayed even longer. That is no reason to hold the population of Franklin County hostage to diminished representation in Montpelier for an indeterminate length of time.

It is a complete misunderstanding of the difference between Mr. McAllister’s right to a fair trial on criminal charges, and his service as a State Senator under the rules of the Legislature. The two are completely separate matters.

As I have said over and over again, McAllister has no ‘right’ to his senate seat. He has had the privilege of occupying that seat at the behest of Franklin County voters who retain all of the rights associated with elected officeholders.

Once Mr. McAllister has been duly ejected, it will be time to look a little deeper into the matter of who knew what and when about the teenaged ‘intern.’

With two other legislators sharing McAllister’s living accommodations, where other legislators probably dropped by on occasions, it defies belief that no one ever remarked on the extreme youth of Mr. McAllister’s companion and the fact that she disappeared into the same room with the 70-year old legislator to sleep at night.

Anyone who is so uncurious or unobservant is arguably unsuited to representing the people’s interests at the State House.

Interlude

local/regional, ,

We interrupt this brief sabbatical to say a word or two about today’s announcement that perennial GMD amusement, Bruce Lisman will enter the governor’s race as a…(drum-roll please)…REPUBLICAN!

Yes, Mr. Non-Partisan has finally traded his dog-whistle for a bright red soapbox; surprising no one.

We all knew what his tepid speechifying was leading to; ‘when’ was the only question.

Phil Scott’s presumed lock on the Republican nomination not withstanding, 2016 is really the best opportunity that Mr. Lisman will have to enter the arena, in the foreseeable future.

And what about that lock by the Lieutenant Governor? Could Lisman sense that Franklin County bad-boy Senator Norm McAllister’s refusal to go gracefully has party regulars up for a bruising in 2016?

As a political newcomer, Lisman can present himself as the clean-slate Republicans should flock to in the wake of Phil Scott’s demonstrated lack of leadership over the McAllister affair.  (No pun intended.)

In a year when Trump-fueled crazy has taken a decidedly anti-Wall Street turn in the Republican Party, it would not seem beneficial to have as one’s primary credentials, executive service at Bear Stearns and JP Morgan Global Equities; but I never could understand how the Republican denial factory works, anyway.

Republicans should have an interesting 2016, as Lisman squares off with Scott and the Franklin County GOP is forced to face their own inaction with regard to McAllister and all of the social hypocrisy that is involved.

Make no mistake about it, even though the citizen-led effort to unseat McAllister has so far been deliberately non-partisan in tone; come campaign time, the gloves are off!

Republicans have had ample time since the end of April to put their house in order.

Lt. Gov Scott’s vote kills improved regulation of “chemicals of concern” in toys

local/regional,

 

Last week Lt. Gov. Scott cast a rare tie breaking vote in the Senate. His “Yes” vote on an amendment from Sen. Peg Flory (R-Rutland) killed a bill that would have strengthened recently enacted regulations controlling toxic chemicals used in children’s toys.

The Senate Health and Welfare Committee was proposing to make changes to Act 188, which passed last year. […] changes sought in the amendment would require that there be a “reasonable risk of exposure” rather than “children will be exposed” to such chemicals. It also added language that there must be “one or more safer and technically and economically feasible alternatives to the chemical” before it can be added to the list.

Just to be clear, Scott’s choice was between strengthening the existing rules governing “chemicals of high concern to children” in toys and other items or keeping the law in its weaker present form.

With his tie-breaking vote, he eliminated new language allowing the Health Commissioner to “consult” with a council on restricting sale of specific children’s items containing chemicals “of concern,” but not have to wait for their recommendation before adding a chemical to a list.

The lieutenant governor proudly says he sided with the business community, which opposed the changes, so as not to “create uncertainty” for them. Scott explained that the weaker version of the law should be “given a chance” so we could “see what happens.”

Okay, raise your hands: who wants to wait and see what happens to Vermont children and their families with the weaker law? What would the convincing measure be — what higher number of child illnesses, cancers, deaths attributable to toxic chemicals? How many court cases do Vermont families have to wade through as parents with fewer resources try to hold corporate profiteers accountable?

Remember that in 2014 when the current law was debated it faced opposition from some heavy hitting businesses. Those groups included IBM, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Wal-Mart, the Toy Industry Association and Kuerig Green (aka: “millions of little plastic cups”) Mountain Coffee.

According to Senator Anthony Pollina (P/D/W-Washington), the changes Scott killed would have brought the Vermont “law’s wording more in line with the language used by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory authorities.” Pollina continued:

“We are talking about chemicals that we know are dangerous. I want to make that very clear,” Pollina said. “What we’re trying to do is bring … our law in line with accepted practices.”

In his tie-breaking vote Scott has made it very clear how far he’ll go to embrace “eliminating uncertainty” for his business friends. Even when his pro-business-profit embrace means putting Vermont families at risk while waiting to see what happens with toxic chemicals in children’s toys.

 

Poll: wide support for workers’ issues

local/regional, National, ,

 

A new national poll shows wide support for raising the minimum wage and other worker-friendly issues. Vermont raised the minimum wage at the start of the year from $8.73 per hour to $9.15 with increases to follow. This despite local business owners whining about it: “I don’t like the state coming in and telling me what I should be doing in my business. It’s not good for business.”

Now a national  AP-GfK Poll measuring public support for minimum wage, maternity and sick leave (Obama mentioned these in his State of the Union message) has been released. Polling shows strong support for these measures.

And in case anyone wonders about the wisdom of continuing similar efforts, the poll showed that a majority think the President should be doing more to help the middle class and poor. And two thirds say the government is doing too much to help the wealthy.

The poll showed six in 10 Americans supporting raising the minimum wage. And strong overall backing for parental maternity and paid sick days also was shown.

The AP-GfK Poll shows, while only 2 in 10 are opposed. Six in 10 also favor requiring all employers to give paid time off to employees when they are sick, while two-thirds favor requiring all employers to give time off to employees after the birth of a child.

Support for both minimum wage, paid sick leave and maternity leave is strong among Democrats, with roughly half of all Republicans supporting those proposals. However, minimum-wage support drops off with moderate/liberal Republicans and sharply with conservatives.

But the minimum wage divides Republicans more closely, with only 4 in 10 in favor, 31 percent opposed and 27 percent not leaning either way. Half of moderate-to-liberal Republicans, but just a third of conservative Republicans, favor a minimum wage increase.

Democrats are trusted over Republicans, the poll found by a two to one margin to help the middle class more and by three to one to help the poor.

 

Re-lease Vermont Ski resorts

local/regional,

 

Recently Vermont State Auditor Doug Hoffer completed a report on long-term leases of valuable state land to Vermont ski resorts. The leases, some dating back to 1942, were designed to help the then-new and developing ski industry. Lease revenue to the state is based on a percentage of lift ticket sales, and now a larger part of resort revenue is from other sources, such as hotels, water parks, golf, etc. State Auditor Hoffer: “Our review points to old lease terms that may not be suitable for today and questions whether taxpayers are receiving fair value for these spectacular public assets,”

Now State Senator Tim Ashe, Chairman of the Finance Committee, has sent a letter to seven major ski resorts. In the letter he suggests that the time has come to explore renegotiating the land leases made decades ago. Although the decades-old lease will not expire for many years, he hopes the resorts will voluntarily discuss new terms. Then Sen. Ashe sets the bar for possible negotiations by reminding the wealthy ski resorts:

“From time to time, the Legislature considers various proposals that would have an impact on various classes of taxpayers. In terms of the ski industry, I have heard Legislators propose eliminating the property tax exemption on snowmaking equipment and other assets, and suggest creating a special non-homestead tax rate for ski areas. It seems to me that voluntary renegotiation of your lease with the State is a far superior method of striking the right balance of proceeds for the right to use public land,” Ashe wrote.

This may be a good early preview for serious negotiations to come. Perhaps not overly subtle (eh, nice resort you have there, be a shame if…), but it may be what it takes.

Protective of their favored tax situations, ski resort managers reacted to Ashe’s suggestions through friendly legislators. Some state legislators (with ski areas in their districts) received copies of Ashe’s letter directly from area ski resort owners and responded quickly. Dorset Rep Patti Komline (R-Bromley) claims the letter to be “a clear threat to try to eliminate tax exemptions currently enjoyed by ski resorts if they refuse to scrap their current leases.” Fellow Republican Rep. Heidi Scheuermann, (R-Stowe Mountain Resort) said “I think it’s inappropriate.” Sheesh, the special ski industry tax exemptions are fine with these two despite budget cuts.

The VSAA president Parker Riehle says they are still crafting a full official response to Ashe’s proposed talks. For now, however, he grabs a little boilerplate Chamber of Commerce stuff off the rack. You know, he says, the ski resort industry should not (god forbid) be facing higher tax burdens especially after all it does for the Vermont economy. “You can’t just focus on the [fifty-year-old] lease payments and think that they look too small.”

Besides, they’re quite comfortable with the status quo. “ …all [ski areas] are comfortable with the lease” agreements in place, says Parker Riehle. I am sure the VSAA resorts are quite at ease with the decades-old lease agreements and the comfy bundles of tax exemptions too.

So for now at least none of the ski resort owners or the VSAA are apparently either threatening to move Vermont’s mountains or build new ones.

Face it, this is a tough industry to take offshore.

 

Minimum wage and the Shark Tank show

local/regional

 

Forty-two cents per hour – that’s how much Vermont’s minimum wage increased as of January first. The minimum wage is now $9.15 per hour, up from $8.73. And tipped workers now will be paid $4.58, a thirty-five-cent-per-hour increase.

Vermont legislators worked very hard to start this minimum change that will inch the hourly minimum to $10.50 by 2018. Nationally since the recession 58% of new jobs have been in low wage occupations where minimum wage sets the pay scale. Who are these workers? The median age of a low-wage worker has risen to 34.9. And 88% are adults over the age of twenty, 56% are women, nearly half are workers of color, and over 43% have some college education.

Estimates suggest that the changes will affect about 30,000 people in Vermont. For now every little bit helps – but this is only $3.36 more per eight-hour shift, and less than $20.00 for a 40-hour week.


So who out of Vermont’s thirty thousand struggling minimum wage earners did WCAX news find to interview? Well no one. But they did seek out someone who complained about it. Karen Zecchinelli, owner of the Wayside Restaurant in Berlin, said

“I don’t like the state coming in and telling me what I should be doing in my business. It’s not good for business,”

She didn’t specify how much, but says she pays her employees a “fair and livable” wage.WCAX news didn’t speak to any Wayside employees. Zecchinelli  is a big financial supporter of Lt. Governor Phil Scott and has held fundraisers for him in the past.

Scott has often expressed doubts about Vermont’s minimum-wage impact on business, and complaints of that sort will likely feature prominently at an upcoming event. In an un-characteristic burst of post-election energy the Lt. Governor is holding an economic “pitch session” at the Capitol Plaza.

“Priority # 1 on Day One (a name right out of the Douglas administration if ever there was one) is described as a cross between a “shark tank show “ and speed dating. It will feature only business people – but business people of all stripes, he says. He hopes the gathering will “set the right tone” to kick off the legislative session. A monotone?

Since Phil Scott’s group pitch is coming  exclusively from business you can expect the ideas will run the gamut – one that goes all the way from A to B.

What is the sound of one group pitching?

At Phil Scott’s Priority #1 Day One, the following “diverse” groups will attend to help “set the tone” for the legislative session:

Vermont Chamber of Commerce

Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce

Vermont Technology Alliance

Vermont Retail and Grocers’ Association

Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility

Associated Industries of Vermont

Vermont Association of Chamber of Commerce Executives

FreshTracks Capital

Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund

Associated General Contractors

Vermont Ski Areas Association

Vermont Association of Realtors

The two groups highlighted already gave heavily to Phil Scott’s most recent campaign.

How many will make donations to Scott’s next campaign fund after the pitching at his “shark-tank”session remains to be seen.