We’ve had our fun at the expense of gas-station magnate (and failed politico) Rodolphe “Skip” Vallee, for his late-blooming environmentalism when it comes to potential competition at Exit 16, his stout defense of Burlington-area gas retailers against charges of price-fixing, and his laughable attempts to put himself on the same level as Bernie Sanders.

But maybe we’re being unfair. Maybe Skip and his colleagues have gotten a bum rap on the collusion charges. After all, we have no proof beyond circumstantial evidence. It might be different if, say, the gasoline industry had a record of price-fixing. That’d put things in a different light.

Oh, wait.

The London offices of BP and Shell have been raided by European regulators investigating allegations they have “colluded” to rig oil prices for more than a decade.

The European commission said its officers carried out “unannounced inspections” at several oil companies in London, the Netherlands and Norway to investigate claims they may have “colluded in reporting distorted prices to a price reporting agency [PRA] to manipulate the published prices for a number of oil and biofuel products”.

… The commission said the alleged price collusion, which may have been going on since 2002, could have had a “huge impact” on the price of petrol at the pumps “potentially harming final consumers”.

The EC wouldn’t identify which corporations were raided, but several, including BP, Shell, and Norway’s Statoil, as well as the oil price reporting agency Platts, all confirmed they are being investigated. Or, as a Shell statement put it, “currently assisting the European commission in an inquiry.”

Cough.

A top Liberal Democratic politician compared the affair to the Libor scandal, in which many of the world’s biggest banks were found to have manipulated global interest rates for their own profit.

And in case you had any illusions that Libor was a one-shot deal, check out this appalling story by Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi, who says the big banks are fixing all sorts of market rates.

You have to think that, if the banks have figured out how to fix pricing mechanisms for their own advantage, that knowledge has probably spread to Big Oil as well.

But hey, I’m sure the only reason Skip’s stations charge higher prices (when they can get away with it) is to pay for those lovely fake flowers in Maplefields restrooms.  

Oh boy, here we go…

Vermont state government is preparing for the possibility of layoffs at IBM’s plant in Essex…

…the employee group Alliance@IBM says workers are girding for a reduction in force at the Essex facility following the technology giant’s unexpectedly low quarterly earnings report – and some cuts reportedly already have been made.

Last November, I brought you the prediction of a respected technology journalist that IBM — which has drastically cut its American workforce over the past several years — was planning a further 78% cut by the year 2015.

Yes, that’s seventy-eight percent. Four out of every five workers, gonzo.

In the wake of this week’s Alliance@IBM statement, Governor Shumlin is trying to stay positive, although he sounds much less sanguine than he did when he responded to my November post by asserting his belief that Essex Junction would survive. Now, he’s channeling Sergeant Schultz:

“If they’re going to do layoffs, as you know, they don’t pre-announce. I don’t know anything that I haven’t read in the paper,” he said. “We haven’t heard anything from IBM. Nothing. Not a word.”

And they won’t, either. Not until the hammer falls and the word begins to leak out, worker by worker. Because that’s how IBM rolls.

It doesn’t pre-announce layoffs; it often keeps each individual layoff below 500 to avoid triggering government reporting requirements; it doesn’t reveal the size of any individual job action. (The only numbers of any sort are Alliance@IBM’s estimates.) It won’t even tell you how many American workers it employs — or the size of its workforce at any individual location. The Burlington Freeploid tried and failed to determine how many people work at Essex Junction:

The Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce’s description of the local IBM plant says it has 5,400 employees.

[Alliance@IBM’s Lee] Conrad placed the number of employees at the chip design and manufacturing facility closer to 3,600 – down from a record high of 8,500 in 2001.

Yikes. I guess that explains why IBM has stopped revealing its workforce: the numbers are too embarrassing. And they reveal the truth about IBM in Vermont. The question “Will IBM stay or go?” has already been answered; they’re 60% gone already, and that percentage will grow before the end of this month.

The Governor claims to be “ready to rock” with guidance programs for laid-off IBMers. But how prepared are we for the almost certain prospect that IBM may be completely gone in a few years’ time, or will at best be a mere shadow of its former self? How prepared is the state for the economic impact on Chittenden County, which is the driver of Vermont’s economy?  

The biggest single “WTF” of this year’s legislative session — bigger even than putative Democrat Peter Shumlin’s steadfast defense of tax breaks for the wealthy — had to be the bungling of campaign finance reform. It’s not the biggest in terms of impact, but it’s the widest margin between expectation and result.

Because after all, the Gov made it pretty damn clear how he felt about tax increases he didn’t approve of. (The only surprise there, IMO, was how far the Legislature was willing to take the tax fight. Sure, Speaker Smith and Penitent Pro Tem Campbell caved in the end. But at least they held out ’till the end.)

Whereas campaign finance reform should have been a slam dunk. At the beginning of the session, there was broad tripartisan agreement on a package that was about as meaningful as it could be in a post-Citizens United world. The heads of the Democratic, Republican, and Progressive Parties, mirabile dictu, all endorsed the legislation. So did Secretary of State Jim Condos. And Paul Burns of VPIRG.

So what could possibly go wrong?

Heh.  

Lawmakers in both houses batted the thing around like a cat toying with a mouse, until the victim was so dizzy that it probably welcomed its eventual demise. About eighty-bajillion different ideas were floated, effectively burying the bill under a mountain of competing proposals. Much too much of the debate was occupied with self-interest, not the public interest. Some were more to blame than others, but the result was a big fat zero for campaign finance reform.

In a year when “everybody” was on board with a decent bill.

Here's a shock for you. Just a few weeks after taking their big stand against gun control on the principle of preserving our sacred constitutional rights, a growing list of Republican senators are lying about what they voted for and against.

Specifically, as Talking Points Memo is reporting, more and more Republicans who filibustered the new gun control proposal are trying to peddle the bogus claim that they were actually in favor of an improved background check system. Republicans who are taking this approach are Rob Portman, Jeff Flake from Arizona, and Kelly Ayotte, from across the river in New Hampshire.

 In fact, Ayotte (and nearly every Republican senator) voted to block the Manchin-Toomey legislation to expand background checks. Instead she voted for a substitute Republican measure to include more mental health reporting in the FBI criminal background check system and permit recovered mentally ill people to buy a gun.

As you may have noticed, the anti gun control, anti background check position has proven to be unpopular among voters, with Ayotte in particular getting heavy criticism during home visits. 

If they were so sure they were right, and standing on principle, wouldn't you think they wouldn't have to lie about their positions? 

I came across this in my in box from the Peace and Justice Center yesterday. I was in contace with Ed briefly in the early 1980's when he was one of the Winooski 44 and I was a member of the defense team. Even in a large group of defendants he stood out as a thoughtful and positive activist. His death is a loss for progressive and peace loving people.

 Ed Everts 1919-2013

13 May 2013, 3:36 pm

Ed Everts, lifelong peace and justice activist, died this past Friday, May 10, 2013, a month short of his 94th birthday.

In September 2007, Serena Chaudhry, then PJC Executive Director, wrote this about Ed:

“Ed Everts fell into a lifetime of leadership and activism. In 1940, Ed Everts joined the military. In 1945, Ed fell from the sky when his plane was hit. His near death experience ultimately pushed him out of the military and inspired Ed’s belief that war is not the solution. This epiphany launched Ed into a life of social justice activism. In a California meat packing company he organized union workers and negotiated the complexities of racial justice and equity. Circumstances eventually brought Ed Everts to Vermont where he continued to agitate through becoming a member and avid supporter of the Peace & Justice Center and the Green Mountain Veterans for Peace as well as filming and producing 15 years of public access T.V. shows.

It is refreshing to see activism recognized and rewarded. Ed Everts was acknowledged in 1997 when he was honored as runner up for United Way’s Hometown Hero Award. It is nothing less than inspiring when celebrated leadership perseveres. Ed Everts persevered. He donated his U.S. Air Force pension to the Peace & Justice Center every month for 23 years. Swords into Plowshares!”

Ed was very generous to the Peace & Justice Center for many years and in many ways: with is heart and soul, his money and time, his songs and laughter, and wit and wisdom. He served on the board, many committees, and proofread the newsletter for countless years. The PJC would not have lasted as long or been the same organization without Ed Everts’ participation. Thank you, Ed.

This Link will take you to an interview with Ed that was printed in the Peace and Justice News in 1997.

His memorial service is June 29, Saturday afternoon at the First Unitarian Universalist Society of Burlington.

You've probably noticed that we've been covering the bill on providing unemployment insurance coverage to people who deliver newspapers for a living. 

The issue is whether the people who work for the newspapers, getting the paper to your door, should be considered employees, which would make them eligible for unemployment coverage, or independent contractors, which would kick them out of the system. It's important to me, not because I'll ever have a job delivering newspapers, but because I think we need to stand up to the decades-long trend to reduce unemployment coverage and benefits, especially for low-wage workers.

As I posted earlier, two things are clear: first, newspaper drivers are employees, not independent contractors. They don't come close to the standard to be met to establish the independent contractor relationship. Second, the law has been clear since 2006 that newspaper carriers are not considered independent contractors, but when the law was passed the Douglas administration adopted a secret policy to continue to apply the exclusion to these workers, so until union advocates unearthed this secret policy earlier this year the workers were barred from the unemployment system.

 Two weeks ago we reported that the Senate had voted to screw the workers out of their unemployment protection, which meant that the bill went back to the House. (Note that the Senate rejected a substitute amendment from Mark MacDonald to protect the newspapers without screwing the workers, but that wasn't something the Republicans or the Democratic majority wanted to do.) 

I'm pleased to report that in one of the last acts of the legislative session, both the House and the Senate adopted the conference committee report that preserved the argument by kicking the issue to a summer study committee. I've heard that Vince Illuzzi was fond of saying “summer studies are for losers”, but in this case, given that the senate conference committee had two of the anti-worker members among their three appointees, I think the House conferees did well to hold the line and prevent the legislature from kicking the carriers off the program altogether.

 Thanks and congratulations to House conferees Bill Botzow, Mike Marcotte, and Warren Kitzmiller for standing up to pressure on this important bill.

Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore

    Riding through the land

Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore

    Without a merry band

He steals from the poor

    And gives to the rich

Stupid bitch!

Congratulations to Vermont’s own Dennis Moore, Governor Shumlin, for winning what he’d call a battle over principle (I’d call it a dick-swinging contest, but then I’m just a “blogger seeking relevance through savagery and acerbic wit,” as Joe Benning so aptly put it) with the Legislature. In the face of a thinly-veiled veto threat, House and Senate leaders withdrew their proposal to make some rich folks pay more and cut taxes for middle-income Vermonters.

And that’s what it came to in the end: Our Democratic Governor, defending wealthy Vermonters’ right to pay embarrassingly little in state income tax. And he won. Huzzah!

The Governor began this legislative session by loudly opposing “broad-based tax increases” while advocating tax hikes that didn’t fit his customized definition of “broad-based taxes” — the gas tax hike and his late unlamented plan to cut Vermont’s share of the Earned Income Tax Credit, not to mention the increase in state property tax. (Which was out of his control, but he could have proposed some corresponding relief if he cared to.) Indeed, eventually he stopped trying to define “broad-based taxes,” since the State House press corps wasn’t buying that particular bridge to nowhere.

The Legislature, which rejected his kick-the-poor ideas for raising revenue (EITC) and cutting expenses (the five-year lifetime cap on Reach Up benefits), kept coming up with creative ways to raise revenue while evading his hard line on taxes. And as quickly as they set ’em up, he knocked ’em down. As the session drew to a close, it became clear that he’d rather sacrifice his own well-crafted spending proposals than be forced to raise the taxes he didn’t want to raise.

The final Legislative proposal was a revenue-neutral idea to make the income tax a bit more progressive. It would have set limits on tax deductions, imposed a minimum 3% tax on top earners, and begun the process of shifting our state income tax from a “federal taxable income” basis to “adjusted gross income.” (As I wrote on March 22, Vermont is one of a handful of states that levy income tax on FTI rather than AGI. Using FTI means the wealthy pay a much lower effective tax rate. And I’m not an accountant, but it seems to me that they get to double-count some of their tax deductions on their Vermont returns. That’s a big break they don’t get in most other states.)

The overall effect: top earners would pay more. The revenue would go to lowering middle-class taxes, thus offering Shumlin a way around his curiously defined no-tax-hike pledge.

And he turned it down, offering some unconvincing rationales.

He first claimed that the plan violated his closed-door “Three Kings” deal with House Speaker Shap Smith and Senate Penitent Pro Tem John Campbell. He also objected to “changing tax policy on the fly,” which is an interesting way to put it. The AGI shift was proposed by the state’s Blue Ribbon Tax Commission two years ago, and the other two ideas have been kicking around the State House for the past few weeks.

Yeah, they’ve been around a while. The only thing  “on the fly” about the budget and tax bill was the $10 million in budget cuts mandated by the Three Kings. Legislative budget-writers had to figure out those cuts in a few days’ time.

Shumlin’s eminence sel et poivre, Jeb Spaulding, advanced the “unintended consequences” wheeze. He warned that the legislation might hurt people with large medical bills — which could be fixed, if need be, with a small tweak. He said it might hurt the real-estate market — as if a slight raise in taxes would impede anyone with the means to buy a costly home. He said it could hurt charitable giving —

— except that donors already get a much more valuable deduction on their federal taxes. Because Vermont’s taxes are based on FTI, they effectively get a second deduction on state taxes. Are they really going to stop giving to nonprofits because they might lose a portion of a much smaller state tax break?

Legislative leaders hope to build a case for their tax plan and bring it back in 2014. I hope they do. Vermont’s tax system isn’t as fair or progressive as the Governor says it is. We can do better. And we could be doing better right now, except for Governor Shumlin’s opposition.

So congratulations, Governor. You stood your ground. Of course, in the process you stomped all over lawmakers who tried to devise a better tax system and aimed inflammatory and misleading rhetoric against your fellow Democrats. But I’m sure it was all worthwhile, just so wealthy Vermonters can continue to pay scandalously little in state income tax.  

On a roll call vote the House just voted to concur with the Senate proposal of amendment on H. 77, the Death with Dignity bill.

 The vote was 75-65, and was definitely not on a party line vote.

Reasonable people can disagree on this issue, but I strongly agree with the advisability and necessity of this legislation. 

We don't talk too much about sports law here, but here's an interesting story. It turns out that a young lawyer who practices in Barre, Andrew Delaney, is the intellectual inspiration behind a move in Congress that we can all support: a change in the law that would strip the NFL and other major sports leagues of their nonprofit status.

Yes, you read that right: the National Football League, that pays its commissioner $11.6 million a year and has revenues of $10 billion a year, is a nonprofit.

As reported in the Newark Star-Ledger, the proposal, the first socially useful bill or amendment ever sponsored by Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, would be called the  Property Reducing Overexceptions for Sports Act (PRO Sports Act).

The bill was inspired by a law review article that Delaney, who has been practicing law in Vermont since 2010, wrote for a brand-new law journal on sports and entertainment law.  I haven't met him personally, although I know the firm, Martin & Associates, for many years. Still, if his new legislative idea goes anywhere he will have made quite an impression for a new lawyer.

One can only wonder if the new law, if passed, will apply to the equally overstuffed but infinitely more corrupt sports cartel, the NCAA. 

5/17/13

I have just learned that Mr. Pomerleau and Mr. Winters have, today, reached a mutually acceptable agreement, and Mr. Pomerleau is now REALLY dropping the appeal.

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

It’s been more than a month since real estate mogul Ernie Pomerleau took out a full-page ad in the Messenger, ‘excusefying’ for his impulse to challenge the permit of local ACE Hardware retailer, Gordon Winters, and announcing his intention to withdraw his appeal.  

The ad followed several days of indignant letters and comment by community members, who assembled in large numbers at a City Council meeting to demonstrate their support for Mr. Winters’ project.

Now, Pomerleau Real Estate has reneged on that very public position and continues to pursue the appeal.  

According to Michelle Monroe of the Messenger, who attempted to contact Mr. Pomerleau earlier in the week, his office said he was out of the country but checking his messages.  No comment was forthcoming from Mr. Pomerleau by the time the story of the ongoing appeal was filed on Friday, so we can only speculate on his rationale for the about-face.

According to Mr. Winters, after the splashy announcement that the appeal would be withdrawn, he was asked to sign a release; presumably, quid-pro-quo for Pomerleau dropping his appeal.  That release represented a blanket commitment by Mr. Winters not to challenge anything that Pomerleau Real Estate might in future seek a permit to do to their St. Albans properties.  Unsurprisingly, Mr. Winters refused and his attorney suggested a much more limited release that would proscribe him from frivolously appealing minor alterations to the adjacent Pommerleau property.

That apparently was unsatisfactory to Mr. Pomerleau, whose attorney proceeded with his appeal and requested mediation; but it remains unclear what issues the mediator would be attempting to resolve.

The appeal suggests that Mr. Pomerleau’s property will be harmed in some way by storm water runoff from the ACE Hardware siting; but that property is situated upstream from the proposed new store.  In fact, the ACE development is actually decreasing impervious surface on that site, and further improving the wastewater profile with catch basins that will represent a net reduction of run-off from the parking area.

The appeal also complains that pedestrian walkways that will make ACE Hardware easily accessible to downtown foot traffic will harm the Pomerleau parking lot; and that the retailer’s signage, which has not yet even been determined in the ACE plan (and in any case will only be visible from the rear of the extreme south end of the St. Albans Shopping Center) will harm his business.

Mr. Pomerleau’s appeal may delay the project, thereby harming the interests not only of Mr. Winters, but also of the taxpayers of St. Albans.  However, it seems unlikely to  succeed, and will give the appearance of extreme frivolity on the appellant’s part…an impression that a developer who routinely engages in the permit process should be reluctant to give.

Furthermore, those taxpayers have already demonstrated their hostility to Mr. Pomerleau’s tactics and he is unlikely to win friends and influence the good people of St. Albans in this manner.   It is therefore very difficult to understand why Mr. Pomerleau, an otherwise savvy businessman, would choose this course.

I have heard rumblings of discontent with the City for a lack of transparency in the TIF distribution process from some business owners and private citizens; and I get the impression that Mr. Pomerleau’s influence is exacerbating already existing discontent with the process.

It therefore seems likely that Mr. Winter’s ACE project is falling victim to political issues having more to do with ham-handed management of delicate relationships on the part of  city manager Dominic Cloud  than  with the project itself.  As the site currently is underutilized, over-paved and rather unattractive, it seems reasonable to assume that the well-planned and architecturally appropriate ACE building would only serve to enhance the value of Mr. Pomerleau’s holdings.

Though undeniably very talented and a great asset to the City;  Mr. Cloud has a habit of acting and speaking impulsively, which has more than once gotten the City into hot water, even while technically being able to claim the high-ground.

This has certainly contributed to worsening the already dysfunctional relationship with the Town; and just recently raised the unnecessary specter of property seizure by right of ’eminent domain’ in a dispute over the planned City parking lot.  

All of which is no excuse for Mr. Pomerleau’s performance vis-a-vis ACE Hardware, but it would be unfair to say that the City is above reproach here.

While we recognize that time is of the essence when it comes to TIF opportunity, and that a certain amount of discretion is required to pursue real estate deals serving the public interest without creating a TIF feeding frenzy;  there are a few loyal and long-serving downtown merchants who may feel disenfranchised by the process and it is crucial to the success of downtown revitalization that all the stakeholders feel valued and have ample opportunity to contribute the wisdom of their experience to that process.  

Mr. Cloud would be well-advised to open up the process a little bit and work toward a culture of trust and empowerment.  Most of all, he might honor the wisdom of the old carpenter’s rule: “Measure twice.  Cut once.”

…And, as for Ernie Pomerleau?  Come on, Mr. Pommerleau – get over it!  You know full-well that you’ve enjoyed the upside of the sweet deal far more frequently than the other guy!  It suits you ill to be mean-spirited and petty over a public project that you know will benefit the downtown as a whole.