Sounds like I missed a fun little evening last Friday, when Vermont Republicans gathered at the Rutland Holiday Inn for their spring fundraiser. A “party of nearly 50,” according to VTDigger’s Andrew Stein.

Wow. “Nearly 50”?

Maybe they can hold next year’s event in a phone booth.

Anyway, the assembled non-multitude was treated to a speech by Senator McDreamy himself, ex-Cosmo centerfold Scott Brown, formerly of Massachusetts and currently flirting with a run in the more GOP-friendly provinces of New Hampshire.

Brown’s message? The VTGOP must be unified in order to win. Yep, yep, sure thing. But the big news was the talk of possible 2014 gubernatorial candidates. Brown, sharing the spotlight with Vermont’s own plausibly moderate McDreamy — Lt. Gov Phil Scott — openly talked of a Scott candidacy. Which led Stein to raise the question with Speed Racer himself:

Is Scott interested in running for governor?

“No, not at this point in time,” he said.

Good thing, since there’s no election “at this point in time”.

But if not Scott, then who? Exactly how desperate are Vermont Republicans for a soupcon of electoral credibility?

Sen. Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland, lobbied his peers to persuade [Jim] Douglas to run for election in 2014.

“He oozes honesty and integrity,” Mullin said of Douglas, as he leisurely sipped on a gin and tonic.

Well, he oozes something, that’s for sure. But in my dictionary, honesty and integrity are not things customarily oozed. Slime, yes; honesty, no.  

No surprise that it’s come to this: a faint glimmer of hope that Oozin’ Jim will descend from his mountaintop retreat and restore the VTGOP to its former glory. Mullin’s coin-in-the-fountain was echoed by State Reps. Tom Terenzini and Lawrence Cupoli. After all, the list of plausible contenders is… well…

Other prominent Republican names, like the Snelling Center’s Mark Snelling, swirled around the room as possible candidates come 2014, but nothing was definite.

Mark Snelling? Whoopee.

One more thing from Stein’s writeup: some fascinating lacunae from the very concise list of attendees:

Noticeably absent from the fundraiser were the three Republican candidates who ran for statewide office in 2012 and lost: Wendy Wilton, who ran for treasurer; Vince Illuzzi, who ran for auditor; and Randy Brock, who ran for governor.

(Forget about Jack McMullen, did we, Andrew?)

I’m a little surprised about Wilton. I guess she couldn’t make it to the Rutland Holiday Inn from her home in… er… Rutland.

Not as surprised at Brock’s absence, considering this little gem from Rep. Cupoli:

I don’t see Randy these days. I have not seen Randy at all.

Siberia?

I’ve had occasion, in the past, to disagree with George Plumb of Vermonters for Sustainable Population; but we are pretty much in agreement that the population of Vermont has no need for growth.

Focussing on the news that Vermont’s population has actually declined by 581 individuals between 2011 and 2012, VSP is reminding us that that may, in fact, be a good thing.

“Sustainability” is what defines a healthy population, and VSP recognizes that the metrics of sustainability involve many contributing factors.

Says Plumb:

“We’re writing a study on 11 different indicators, and each indicator will determine the optimal, or sustainable, population size of Vermont.” The indicators… range from a population’s ecological impact, to that population’s degree of democratic representation, to the numbers needed to support a “steady-state economy.”

It’s a pleasure to read that someone else is less concerned about the much ballyhooed “exodus” from Vermont and more about how we can ensure that the human population can be fully supported here without further compromising the state’s fragile natural resources and quality of life.

For years now, like clockwork, UVM Economics instructor Art Woolf has routinely hung crepe in the pages of the Freeps, lamenting that the population of Vermont is “aging.”  

Disregarding the fact that the population of the entire country is also aging, state Republicans have taken up the cry, demanding tax “incentives” to stem the imagined flight of “job creators.”  Even Governor Shumlin seems to have bought into that myth, although recent indications are that those old folks coming in and cluttering up the register have more disposable income than in most other states.

It appears to have occurred to no one in the administration that this aging demographic represents a new market to be addressed with goods, services and quality of life experiences; all of which Vermont might position itself uniquely to deliver.  When that “aging” population is creatively recognized for the nascent market it represents, there will be plenty of jobs attracting young workers who will have families, reinvigorating both the economy and the gene pool at the same time.  Then, the cycle will begin again.

But all that is beside the fact that a sustainable population should be the goal, not a growing one.  

Why is it that we recognize the unsustainable nature of unlimited growth with regard to the body (ie. cancer), but can’t quite grasp the fact that economies and even nations “die” when population growth exceeds the loading capacity of both natural resources and human services?

The sustainable population message is not without its problems, however.  In order for a sustainable population model to allow for the essential revitalizing effect of immigration, some things have got to give.

Opportunities lie in voluntary changes to our consumption patterns in order to spare resources; and in establishing easy access to birth control and full-choice family planning services for everyone.  

Neither option will appeal to everyone, but sooner or later those will be the choices we all have to make.  Mindlessly ramping-up population growth, were it even possible in Vermont, would just force us to make those choices that much sooner.

It’s time to look at our state as “almost full” rather than “almost empty,” and to start making some smart decisions to optimize the situation.

Usually, I get an unbridled kick out of saying “I told you so” when one of my fearless forecasts actually comes to pass. But this time, I have decidedly mixed feelings. Because it means a lot of suffering for our most troubled citizens, not to mention a significant policy error by the Governor and a whole lot of hard work for some talented and dedicated professionals.

Yesterday, the legislature’s Mental Health Oversight Committee received an avalanche of bad news about the creaky, overstretched, jury-rigged system. It shows a real crisis in the short term, and the flaws in Shumlin’s grand plan for the long term.

And yes, it’s exactly what I predicted a year and a half ago, when Shumlin was ramming his plan through the legislature.

To get the full picture, you have to read both VTDigger and the Freeploid; each highlighted different aspects of the dismal tidings.

Digger’s Andrew Stein focuses on the fact that patients in need of urgent psychiatric care are being parked in hospital emergency rooms for days at a time. Last month, the average ER wait time — the average — was more than two days. The longest was almost two weeks. The reason: a shortage of beds for people with severe psychiatric illness.

We lost roughly 50 beds when the Vermont State Hospital closed. The chronic shortage is proof that we either need a central hospital of equivalent size or, at the very least, an equivalent number of beds throughout a decentralized system. Neither will happen under Shumlin’s plan.

After the jump: a flawed partner in Brattleboro, and musical chairs at the DMH.

The Freeploid’s Nancy Remsen (behind the Gannett paywall) opens her story with the potential consequences of Shumlin’s reliance on the Brattleboro Retreat. The feds have threatened to withdraw their funding if the Retreat doesn’t shape up, and the primary trouble spot is its handling of the most seriously ill patients — the ones who would have gone to VSH in the past. Remsen:

Termination of the Retreat’s Medicare and Medicaid contracts would not only challenge the financial viability of the psychiatric hospital, but potentially throw the state’s entire mental health system into crisis if the Retreat had to close.

The Retreat has had a checkered history in financial management and quality of care; the Shumlin administration chose to place even more faith — and a whole lot of Irene recovery money — in the Retreat’s hands. That may prove to be a mistake.

As to whether there are contingency plans, Interim Mental Health Commissioner Frank Reed said, “We are pulling a work group together.”

Let’s pause here and take note of the “Interim” tag on the Commissioner’s title. Frenk Reed is the fourth person to occupy that office during the four-plus years of the Shumlin Administration. And when Paul Dupre takes the job on July 1, he will be the fifth.

Five commissioners. During a time when the system has been in crisis, and needs a firm hand on the tiller. Makes me wonder if Shumlin’s stubbornly-held idea of a decentralized system is unworkable. Or so damnably difficult that Mental Health Commissioners are falling like dominoes.

Shumlin’s much-vaunted reorganization is aimed at providing more outpatient crisis care and more “step-down” recovery services. But this doesn’t really do squat for the very small but persistent number of Vermonters who need one thing, and one thing only: inpatient treatment. Proof: even as the administration begins to open new facilities, ER wait times continue to grow.

The worst part of all this? Key lawmakers are still hoping to build the new system on the cheap. From VTDigger, a quote from Interim Commissioner Reed and the legislative response:

“We still have bed shortages. And until we have the new hospital built with 25 beds, we’re going to continue to have a bed shortage for acute inpatient care.”

… But legislators are considering outfitting the 25-bed Berlin hospital with 16 beds at first.

[Sen. Sally] Fox and [Rep. Anne] Donahue said that they don’t have enough information yet to determine that the state needs the facility to operate at full capacity, and the committee plans to wait until November before making a recommendation to the Legislature as to whether to equip the facility with 16 or 25 beds.

Oh. My. God.

If the current, wretched state of things isn’t enough to convince the Legislature of the need for a full build-out in Berlin, then I don’t know what is. They can’t possibly be looking at what’s best for our most troubled Vermonters; instead, they’re trying to save a few bucks.  

Did you see this? Outrageous!

This week Rolling Stone published an interview with Serena Williams, and she says some terrible things in it.

The biggest deal, and what has attracted the most notice, was her extended discourse blaming the victim in the Steubenville rape case.

Serena just shakes her head. “Do you think it was fair, what they got? They did something stupid, but I don't know. I'm not blaming the girl, but if you're a 16-year-old and you're drunk like that, your parents should teach you: don't take drinks from other people. She's 16, why was she that drunk where she doesn't remember? It could have been much worse. She's lucky. Obviously I don't know, maybe she wasn't a virgin, but she shouldn't have put herself in that position, unless they slipped her something, then that's different.”

Amazingly bad, especially for someone who holds herself out as a voice for women's rights, eh?

Don't worry, it gets worse. How? It gets worse because of what has been reported as her apology. I'll post the entire thing so you can decide how to think about it yourself:

What happened in Steubenville was a real shock for me. I was deeply saddened. For someone to be raped, and at only sixteen, is such a horrible tragedy! For both families involved – that of the rape victim and of the accused. I am currently reaching out to the girl’s family to let her know that I am deeply sorry for what was written in the Rolling Stone article. What was written – what I supposedly said – is insensitive and hurtful, and I by no means would say or insinuate that she was at all to blame.

Granted, she acknowledges that what happened to the victim was bad, which is a start, but she goes way downhill from there. First, she refers to the convicted rapists as “the accused”. Second, she posits that the suffering of the rapists is morally equivalent to the suffering of the victim. And finally, in three different ways, she tries to weasel out of what she did. As we know, an essential element of an apology is an admission that you did something wrong, but she fails to do this. First, she uses the passive voice (“what was written”) in the classic “mistakes were made” tradition of fake apologies. Second, she refers to the interview as “what I supposedly said”. The only way this statement makes any sense is if it is coupled with a denial that she said what she is quoted as saying, but she is too cowardly to go that far. If she really didn't say it, and Rolling Stone is lying about what she said, this would be a serious matter and she should be going all-out to attack Rolling Stone for lying about her, but it's telling that she never does that. Third, she says she “by no means would say or insinuate that [the victim] was at all to blame”. Of course, this is another lie, because that is exactly what she did. I've always kind of liked Serena Williams. She's a great player, and she seems to be pretty gracious about the fact that she's better than her older sister. Still, both her original statement and her fake apology fall far short of the standards that anyone should live up to.

I think it's worthy of note when someone who has done some really bad things makes a sincere apology, and we have an example of that today.

There's a group called Exodus International. It's a Christian group founded in 1976 that has provided some of the theological and ideological ammunition for the bogus outfits that claim to “cure” homosexuality. I can hardly conceive of the suffering that Exodus and groups like it have caused to people who were indoctrinated to hate themselves for being different.

I have to admit, this week we saw a serious, sincere, and meaningful apology from these people. I'm not kidding: they admitted they were wrong all along, they apologized for the suffering they caused, and they shut themselves down.

Take look at part of his apology, and then read the whole thing:

Please know that I am deeply sorry. I am sorry for the pain and hurt many of you have experienced. I am sorry that some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn’t change. I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation that stigmatized parents.

It's hard to read this,and the rest of their post, and not believe that they're sincere. Plus, their action in shutting down the organization, at least as currently constituted, seems like a big, big deal.

For these reasons, the Board of Directors unanimously voted to close Exodus International and begin a separate ministry. “This is a new season of ministry, to a new generation,” said Chambers. “Our goals are to reduce fear (reducefear.org), and come alongside churches to become safe, welcoming, and mutually transforming communities.”

I'm not one of the people they hurt by their actions, so I'm in no position to accept the apology, but in times like these, when every politician's change of position on marriage equality, however tardy, is rightly welcomed into the movement, this change seems as big as the unprecedented swing in public opinion we've seen in the last ten years.

 The Vermont Agency of Commerce and Community Development has rejected a plea by EB-5 investor-financed project DreamLife to reconsider the project’s cancelation. The ‘final’ decision to end the state’s authorization for  the plan to build high-end assisted-living units in Vermont was recently reported in the Free Press.

[Vermont] – unswayed by an appeal from DreamLife, an EB-5 project to build assisted living homes around the state – has finalized its cancellation of the project.

DreamLife Retirement Resorts proposed building six, 160-unit high-end assisted-living facilities in Vermont. Using the EB-5 investment program they were seeking to raise $144 million cash from 300 foreign investors seeking green card visas.

The EB-5 project arrangement with the state was initially canceled March 27th because of “material misrepresentation” by DreamLife. Four individuals representing the company in Florida claimed to be attorneys but were not licensed to practice law in that state. As long ago as last September, the state had canceled a memorandum of understanding with Dreamlife over the company’s failure to provide proper notification of expanding development plans.

Now the  promised “detailed response” by DreamLife’s head Phil Mooney to the state’s concerns has been rejected and cancelation made final, according to Secretary of Commerce Lawrence Miller.

However Mooney is not giving up the company’s Vermont dream easily, according to the Free Press. He would like to meet with Secretary Miller about salvaging his investment scheme.

“We maintain that our project brings substantial benefits in employment and quality of life in several communities in Vermont,” Mooney said. “We have hope of being able to bring the benefits of these projects to Vermont.”

Phil Mooney took up the DreamLife leadership from Richard Parenteau, the founder who remains a “background” investor. Parenteau, a Canadian, was convicted of perjury in Quebec last summer in a dispute over a will. In an earlier diary about DreamLife I noted that Parenteau was serial business starter or creator.

Over the last 20 years, Parenteau has created and dissolved more than two dozen companies in Florida and Vermont […] Five of the entities bear the DreamLife name, including an insurance company, a real estate firm and a finance company, all three of which are now inactive.

And now Phil Mooney also seems to have his head in the endless dream life cloud. But in this case, the clouds are full of rain.  

Just as South Burlington is poised to vote again on whether or not to oppose siting of F-35’s at Burlington Airport, I see that the Air Force has acknowledged more “mistakes” made in the F-35 impact study.

Beyond configuring their impact assessments with population data more than ten-years out-of date (from the 2000 census), it now appears that they misrepresented public support for the siting

as 8-2 in favor.  Apparently, the true numbers are more like the exact reverse.

‘Kind of makes you wonder what else has been fudged.

So the City Council has decided that the Rule of Law doesn’t apply to the Church Street Marketplace District.  In total secrecy the public body decided that the police can banish whomever they want from this district with no due process and no chance of appeal.  The cop’s word is the only law.

Despite Miro’s promise of transparency, the City Council is making the brazenly fraudulent claim that no one can know how they came to this resolution, despite Vermont’s Open Meeting law, by claiming attorney-client privilege! Their preposterous claim is that because they received council from the city’s lawyer, they are not allowed to tell anybody what happened.

Only now are the Progressives realizing the grave mistake they made in agreeing to this draconian power authorized to the police. The Democrats on the council however are fighting tooth and nail to keep the council’s doing secret.  Why? Because they are actually Republicans pretending to be Democrats.  That’s the only explanation I can come up with.

1) The ordinance is in itself illegal.

2) The demand of secrecy on the council is also illegal, based on a false premise of ‘privilege’.

Burlington has come a long, long way from the days of the People’s Republic of Burlington…

More:

http://www.alternet.org/civil-…

After spending a few minutes of my morning listening to Jim Douglas guest-hosting the Mark Johnson Show on WDEV*, my attention turned to the Mitchell Family Organ which I happily subscribe to. And there on the front page was news of the Vermont Health CO-OP’s extremely belated come-to-Jesus moment.

*I could only take a few minutes before the bile hit flood stage in my throat. Good ol’ Jim was hosting a discussion about Our Most Misunderstood President, Calvin Coolidge. He and his guest were explaining how Silent Cal’s presidency was a smashing success that left our economy in terrific shape, and deserved absolutely no blame whatsoever for THE WORST CRASH IN OUR HISTORY happening only seven months after he left office. Based on that discussion, I’m sure Jim Douglas wouldn’t mind if we called him the Calvin Coolidge of Vermont Politics. “When restraint was called for, he was restrained; when action was called for, he was restrained.”

Lika an alcoholic taking The Pledge after waking up in a gutter, the CO-OP has belatedly responded to its failure to win a Certificate of Public Good by thoroughly overhauling its management structure:

— Founder and board chair Mitch Fleischer, forced to choose between a lucrative contract for his brokerage and leadership of his brainchild, has opted for the big money. He’s gone from the VHC Board.

— A bunch of new people have been added to the board, including Governor Shumlin’s real estate lawyer Jerry Diamond, Steve Post of VSECU, and three guys with experience in health care management, insurance, and regulation. The original board didn’t have much of that, which is one reason that Financial Regulation Commissioner Susan Donegan called VHC’s structure a “recipe for a corporate governance disaster.”

— A statement that the lucrative, no-bid contract with Fleischer’s brokerage is “under review.”

— A promise to release new insurance rates in the near future, that will be more competitive than those originally considered by Donegan.

— And, most importantly of all, a complete change of tone by CEO Christine Oliver. After Donegan rejected VHC’s application, Oliver reacted angrily, saying VHC had been “blindsided,” hinting that Blue Cross Blue Shield had undue influence in the process, and all but accusing Donegan of unprofessional conduct.  

Oliver’s new tone is conciliatory to the point of subservience (Mitchell Family Paywall warning; a less comprehensive but adequate account is available free at VTDigger):

“We knew we had to go back and regroup and address her issues, and that’s what we’re in the process of doing right now,” Oliver said Tuesday. “We are completely and thoroughly taking stock of everything that’s mentioned in that ruling, not putting Band-Aids on things but really fundamentally re-looking at what we’re doing.”

This is clearly a desperation bid by VHC to win approval in time for the launch of the health care exchange in January. (It’d actually need approval long before then, since consumers will be able to choose coverage through the exchange starting October 1.) 2014 is, by a country mile, VHC’s best opportunity to get into the insurance marketplace. As a brand-new company facing entrenched competitors, it needs the chance to compete at a moment when all parties will be starting from square one. If it has to wait until 2015, it’ll be at a huge disadvantage.

So VHC needs quick action, and is fully aware of that. Hence the complete change of heart.

If I were Donegan, I wouldn’t give in. The application process was lengthy and thorough; now VHC is asking her to accelerate the process for a reinvented organization with no track record. It’s simply too little, too late.

Oh, and one more note from the Mitchell Family account, penned (of course) by Peter Hirschfeld:

The CO-OP’s troubles have begun winning headlines in Washington, D.C., where congressional Republicans are turning troubles for the CO-OP into ammunition in their war against “Obamacare.”

… The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued a subpoena to the Vermont Health CO-OP recently seeking documents related to its finances.

Great. Not that VHC’s missteps are going to single-handedly destroy health care reform, but the last thing we need is to be giving House Republicans more ammunition for one of their anti-Obama jihads. Thanks, VHC.  

Yesterday I offered some pointed commentary (“idiots” rolled out of my Blogger’s Thesaurus) about the off-again, on-again firing of VSEA chief Mark Mitchell. Well, today brings another life lesson in Why Public Sector Employees Have Such a Bad Reputation.

To wit, the hothouse flowers who work for the Agency of Education, who are all upset over the Agency’s pending move to downtown Barre. Per Terri Hallenbeck of the Freeploid, some Agency staffers are worried about CRIME!!!!! and possible environmental contamination.

Okay, yes, there’s crime in Barre. But we’re not exactly talking Hell’s Kitchen here. And as for environmental contamination, well, it’s a NEW BUILDING which will presumably meet current safety standards.

C’mon, people. This is the kind of thing that gives public-sector employees a bad name. If you’re complaining about a steady, union-protected, nine-to-five job in Barre, then, well, a lot of people are going to think you’re pampered little lapdogs. And they’re going to resent the taxes that pay your salaries.