Your Secretary of State, Jim Condos, has released the numbers from an audit of optical scanning machines in four randomly-selected Vermont towns. And the results were rather strikingly precise (with one small caveat, which I will get to later): The machines were accurate to within a couple of votes in almost every case.

Vote tabulations by machine were re-checked by hand count in Barre Town, Brandon, Essex, and Newfane, in the races for Congress and Treasurer. For instance, in Newfane, Peter Welch gained a single vote in the audit, while the other four candidates’ totals were unchanged. And in the Barre Town vote for Treasurer, Beth Pearce lost two votes, Jessy Diamondstone gained one, and the totals for Wendy Wilton and Don Schramm were unchanged.

“Good news,” Condos told GMD. “It’s a good thing to do the audits; it ensures the reliability of the system.”

There was one exception to the near-perfecct performance of the machines, and the primary cause was human error.

After the jump: the problem with write-ins, and the push for more scanners.

The only inaccuracies larger than a vote or two were in some tallies of write-in votes. The worst (so to speak) was in the Barre Town count for Treasurer; the machine reported 3 write-in votes and 102 blank ballots, while the audit detected 14 write-ins and only 85 blanks. (Other towns were much closer the mark; Brandon and Newfane had the write-in and “blank” tallies correct within a vote or two.)

The problem, says Condos, begins when a small number of voters write in a candidate’s name but fail to color in the oval. The machines only read the ovals, so those ballots are counted as blank. After the machines tabulate the results (which takes only a few minutes after the polls close), poll workers are supposed to examine the ballots to check for write-ins. Judging from the (very small sample size) results of the audit, it appears that some towns do a better job of cross-checking than others. “We send instructions every year about how to read the ballots,” said Condos with a hint of a sigh. “But we have a very manual election system.”

It seems clear that he’d like to make the system a little bit less manual. “Last year, the House passed a bill that would mandate every town with more than 1,000 voters to use scanners,” he notes. The bill died in the Senate. “The state would have paid for the machines, with federal funds through HAVA [the Help America Vote Act].”

The Legislature failed to act on a variety of reforms to election and campaign reform laws in the last session; Condos is hoping for better things next time.

And, lest we confuse Vermont’s machines with, say, those Diebold thingies in Ohio, Condos reminds us that Vermont law requires a paper trail throughout the process, so everything can be checked and rechecked if need be.  

A lot of GMD readers never read the Comments below each diary. And sometimes the Comments do emit more heat than light. (Although I will say that the tone of GMD discussions is a whole lot more substantive and civil than what can be found on a lot of mainstream media sites.)

But if you don’t usually read the comments, you should make an exception for my most recent “Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down” diary, because there’s quite a remarkable give-and-take between State Auditor-Elect Doug Hoffer and Benjy Adler, co-owner of The Skinny Pancake. The subject is Burlington’s livable wage ordinance and SP’s new contract with the Burlington airport.

Scroll down past my natterings; the discussion starts with the second comment and continues from there. Both men state their cases firmly but with respect. It gets quite detailed, but if you want to understand where SP and its critics are coming from, it’s necessary reading.  

If you read today's article in VtDigger you know that the Vermont State Employees Association (VSEA) has confirmed that they are talking to Vince Illuzzi to take over the job as legislative affairs director. The job is available because Cassandra Gekas, who had confirmed just before the election that she had been offered the job, has decided not to take it.

The question I have to ask about this story is a simple one: are they crazy?

We know that Illuzzi has had good relations with organized labor, and over the years he has run for office with the endorsement, if not the active support, of some of Vermont's biggest unions. Still, if VSEA thinks that Vince Illuzzi is a friend to Vermont's working people they're kidding themselves.

I'll just talk about one chapter in recent history. In 2010 Vermont's unemployment compensation trust fund was in trouble, closing in on a zero balance. This wasn't surprising, since the economy had collapsed,, Vermont, like the rest of the country, was experiencing high unemployent, so many more people were drawing on the fund.

In addition, for decades Vermont law had systematically underfunded the system with artificially low caps on payroll levels subject to the unemployment tax. In other words, Vermont businesses had received the benefit of having their employees covered by the unemployment system but had not had to pay taxes at levels needed to sustain the system. We had undercollected from employers, and that led directly to the fund balance shortages in 2009-10.

There had to be a legislative solution, and advocates for unions, unemployed people, and employers spent hours at the State House trying to work out a solution. The advocates for the unemployed had to fight hard to limit attacks on benefit levels, expansion of disqualifications, and other anti-worker proposals.

What did Vince Illuzzi propose?

For one thing, he proposed $22 million in new taxes on Vermont's workers. As Peter Hirschfeld reported in Vermont Today:

 A proposal under consideration in the Senate would raise up to $22 million annually by assessing a new tax on the vast majority of working residents. The new revenue, Senate lawmakers say, could allow the state to rescue the bankrupt fund without cutting the benefits of out-of-work Vermonters. The additional money, according to Sen. Vince Illuzzi, would also tamp down the tax increases on businesses that will be needed to return the fund to solvency.

You got that, right? Illuzzi's proposal was to raise taxes on workers specifically in order to avoid raising taxes on businesses. This tax was such an extreme measure that even the anti-worker Douglas administration would not support it.

 For another thing, the bill that Illuzzi introduced, S. 290 (technically it was a committee bill, but it was a bill from the committee he chaired) included other anti-worker provisions. His proposal, which became law, was to slash unemployment benefits by imposing a one-week waiting period on benefits for newly eligible workers. While couched as merely a delay and not a cut, since most workers don't exhaust their benefits the waiting period actually reduces the total benefits they receive by one week's worth.

His bill also included harsher treatment for workers who are disqualified for benefits because they were fired for misconduct in connection with their employment.

The cuts and other program changes would have saved money by cutting benefits to unemployed workers by $100 million. 

Fortunately, Democrats were able to limit, roll back, or sunset some of the worst provisions of Illuzzi's bill. The bill would have been a lot worse, and specifically a lot worse for workers, if Illuzzi had gotten his way.

There are plenty of organizations in the State House who hire lobbyists without regard to ideology. To a degree, if you know your way around the building and do your homework you can do a job even for a client you don't really agree with. Traditionally, though, unions rely on union people to represent them in the building; it's seen as more than a job.

While Illuzzi has a reputation of being a determined fighter for the things he really wants, is there any reason to think that he is committed to the cause of workers in Vermont? 

So yesterday we learned that the Joseph Hazlewood of Vermont politics, Darcie “Hack” Johnston, gets her political insight from the ultraconservative Newsmax.com. Today, we receive some pearls of wisdom from Angry Jack Lindley, chair of the VTGOP, courtesy of Terri Hallenbeck at vt.Buzz:

Vermont Republican Party Chairman Jack Lindley, admitting he wasn’t the hippest guy, said the GOP plans to get more hip. He said they are looking for an intern who can help the party appeal to younger people. “We need to be relevant to young people in the state,” he said.

Oh yeah, that’ll do the trick. I’m just picturing Angry Jack in a leather jacket and aviator glasses, hanging around the UVM campus looking for a young person who can lead the entire party back to relevance. While you’re at it, Jack, you might check out that hippity-hop music. I hear the kids are really into it.

Any other insights, Jack?

He also said he’s consulted with former Gov. Jim Douglas about how to re-brand the party that seems to be having an identity crisis.

That seems like a painfully obvious move; am I supposed to believe that he hadn’t already consulted the most successful Vermont politician of the last decade? Not to mention that Jim Douglas isn’t exactly the avatar of the younger generation.

Also, again with the rebranding? “We don’t need to change our positions to attract more moderate voters; we just need a brighter shade of lipstick on that pig.” Sheesh.

And finally, a rather startling tidbit… after the jump.  

And he said the party will do a better job of recruiting legislative candidates in districts where they know they have a chance. “We were too careful with recruits,” he said. “We will not be using litmus tests to be finding candidates.”

He didn’t make it clear what kind of litmus test was used in the past.

Litmus tests? Litmus tests??? The VTGOP is in serious decline, it’s reduced to near-irrelevance in the Legislature, it had an acknowledged shortage of good candidates, and they were turning people down because they weren’t (presumably) conservative enough?

Who administered these tests, Jack? El Jefe General John McClaughry? The Hack? Robbity Roper? The St. Albans Mafia? Maybe Paul LePage conducted a few inquisitions during his visit to Vermont.

I say it again: as long as these clowns are running the VTGOP, the Democrats have nothing to worry about.

So Phil Scott, moderate Republican and the party’s sole shining light: do you have anything to say about all this? What, exactly, is your vision for making the VTGOP into something other than a complete joke?

Hey, look Alternet ran a story about how everyone is ignoring South Burlington's POV on the F-35!

Faced with the community-damaging possibility of the U.S. Air Force basing its soon-to-be-tested F-35 nuclear capable fighter bomber at the Burlington Airport in their city, South Burlington’s City Councilors have once again expressed carefully and coherently argued opposition to the plan that the Air Force’s own study found would render more than a thousand nearby homes “incompatible with residential use.” In response to two recent pro-F-35 petitions from regional business groups, the city council met November 23 and voted 4-0 with one member absent to approve similar three-page, single-spaced, analytical responses to the two sets of petitioners… Vermont media have all but ignored the official response of the City Of South Burlington, except for the Burlington Free Press which reported the decision three days later, in a story by John Briggs, who emphasizes the noise issue at the expense of housing, health, safety or any other issue cited by the city. http://www.alternet.org/vt-city-fights-planned-f-35-jet-testing-would-make-1000-homes-incompatible-residential-use

Just a quick poll: how many tee-shirts do you own? How many pairs of pants, socks, underwear?  How many hats, coats, jackets, scarves, pairs of gloves?  ‘Don’t know offhand?  Neither do I.



When I was a girl we had plenty of clothing to wear; suitable for all seasons.  But “plenty” had a different meaning in those days, when closets weren’t jam-packed with a rainbow of alternatives; and there was no overflow going to tag-sales, re-sale shops, and into the waste bin.  Buying even a shirt represented a considered investment for the average shopper, who worried about things like wearability and how many launderings it could survive.

In song and pictures, we were told to “Look for the union label…;” the message being that we could be confident in the workmanship and proud of our purchase when we knew it supported a responsible American industry.

But that was then, and this is now.

News of the Bangladeshi clothing factory fire just gets worse and worse.

At last count, the blaze that burned over Saturday and Sunday claimed the lives of 110 victims, highlighting the appalling working conditions at the factory that services U.S. retailers like Walmart, JC Penney and Kohl’s.

That the situation was not limited to a single factory was brought home when a second similar fire occurred at another Bangladeshi factory two days later.

According to Al Jazeera’s Nicolas Haque:

“These are workers who make clothes for the world’s leading brands, so it’s expected that they should have international standards in these factories,” he said. “But since 2006, 600 factory workers have died in fires like this one.”

Then, yesterday, a preliminary inquiry suggested that the fire that killed so many had been deliberately set.

Bangladesh’s interior minister, Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir, said a preliminary inquiry had concluded the fire was the result of arson. “We have come to the conclusion that it was an act of sabotage. We are finding out as of now who exactly the saboteurs are and all culprits will be brought to book,” Alamgir said.

Today, we learn that workers were prevented from fleeing the inferno by a locked gate, which represented the only means of escape.

I am not the first person to comment on the parallels to the infamous Triangle Shirtwaist Fire of 1911.  That deadly fire took place in the middle of Manhatten, and resulted in the deaths of 146 female garment workers.

Helpless onlookers never forgot the horror of watching as countless young women leapt to their death to escape the flames.   They, too had found the only accessible exit locked-up tight.

That appalling industrial disaster brought so much attention to the plight of sweatshop workers that it prompted legislation governing factory safety standards, and led to the success of the International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union, a key player in the era of union power.

Yesterday, a commentator on CNN mentioned the Triangle fire and the resulting push for unionization and wondered if something similar could happen in Bangladesh.  

She seemed completely unaware of the singular irony in her remarks.

If globalization measures had not devastated the American garment industry over the past thirty years, workers here might still be enjoying well-paid jobs as full participants in a thriving consumer economy.

What was sold to American voters as an opportunity to empower third-world economies while at the same time lowering the cost of living at home, turned out to be just the starting gate for a global race to the bottom that now sees the majority of worldwide clothing being produced in Dickensian circumstances that Americans, not to0 long ago, would have abhorred.

If those Bangladeshi workers were to succeed in organizing for better conditions, the patrons of their factories, the Walmarts, JC Penneys and Kohl’s, would simply go elsewhere to contract for clothing manufacture. That’s because the only real power to affect change is still in the hands of the American consumer.

Unless we once again learn to want less and demand more from clothing suppliers, third-world sweatshops will continue to be the rule in the garment industry.  

‘Just a little something to bear in mind this holiday season, as discount retailers try to outdo themselves in the “bargain” department.  

After a two-day delay due to holiday travel, we proudly present the Blockbuster 3-D edition! Watch out for flying digits!

The Once and Future Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell, for salvaging his position thanks to a last-minute personal revelation. After a difficult 2012 session including frequent delays, abortive debates, confusion, contentiousness, and disorganization which led to a last-minute rush and belated adjournment… and after spending months blaming everyone but himself for all of the above… Campbell has apparently realized that some of that stuff was, incredibly, his fault.

“I had a lot of shortcomings in the first term, I’m not going to back away, I’m not going to make excuses,” Campbell said. “I’ve certainly learned from them. I’ve always believed communication is the most important aspect of what any leader can have. I think I failed there. The office was always busy. I wasn’t listening to everyone, I was listening to a small group of people.”

“All of you know my time management skills may not be the best,” Campbell said. “I am a poster child for ADD.”

This deathbed conversion, coming on the eve of the Senate Democratic caucus’ leadership vote, was enough to convince a majority to give Campbell another shot. In the process, they set aside the question of whether someone with poor time management skills is really a good choice for the office.

Of course, now the real job starts. Will Campbell actually change his ways, or will the caucus’ benevolence result in two more years of dysfunction?

journalistic brown-nosing, of which we had two prime examples in the past week. Most egregiously, there was Paul Heintz’ Iron John experience with the Governor. Heintz fell into a trap on this one; Shumlin invited him to go huntin’. It must have been hard to turn him down. And having gone, he almost had to write about it.  

But he could have — and should have — said no. He put himself in an inherently conflicted position. No matter how he wrote the piece, he was essentially serving as Shumlin’s fluffer, displaying him as a real human being who likes to do stuff that “real Vermonters” do. And although part of me sympathizes with Heintz, he still deserves to catch some grief. And we are happy to throw some his way.

Our other groundward thumb goes to VTDigger’s Andrew Stein, for his beatification of outgoing Mental Health Commissioner Patrick Flood. According to his article, Flood’s abrupt departure is a subject of universal lamentation. He performed heroically, earning the approbation of all concerned.

Let me make clear that I’m not being critical of Mr. Flood, who (by all accounts) is an accomplished public servant. I have been, and continue to be, very critical of the policy he was implementing, but he didn’t create the policy. And in this case, my criticism is aimed at a journalistic hagiography. When I read the piece, I wondered how it came to be written in the first place. It certainly doesn’t add anything to the public’s understanding of the issues. It doesn’t do much, except for burnishing Flood’s public image. Listen, the guy deserves a Good Conduct Medal for his work under difficult circumstances. But is it Digger’s job to do the honors?

After the jump: a theatrical mystery, an unlivable wage, and… I say nice things about a Republican.

State Representative Heidi Scheuermann (R-Stowe), for a remarkably clear-eyed diagnosis of what ails the Vermont Republican Party. In an opinion piece published in some area newspapers and also available on her website, she outlines a way out of the wilderness and back to relevance for her party. While Randy Brock is saying he would have done more of the same if only he’d had more money, and Darcie “Hack” Johnston promises that Lenore Broughton is ready to dump more of her inheritance down the black hole of Vermonters First, and Republican leaders in general say all they have to do is catch up with the Democrats in microtargeting the electorate. The latter is true, but information is only as effective as its application and “messaging” is only as effective as the message. Scheuermann acknowledges the diminished state of the party and offers some good ideas that her elders ought to listen to.

Not that I entirely agree with her, of course. But she makes a good case in Republican terms. And I definitely agree that our system works better when there is a credible and articulate conservative party. Her piece is well worth reading, and I hope other Republicans are listening.

Given their recent track record, I doubt it.

Northern Stage, one of the region’s strongest theatre companies, for suddenly and mysteriously parting ways with Brooke Ciardelli, its founder and artistic director. Her departure will take effect almost immediately. It’s a stunning end — and an unkind kiss-off — to the person who built Northern Stage from nothing into a highly respected organization.

This fall, Northern Stage hired its first Executive Director. Less than two months latter, it cuts ties with Ciardelli. From the timing alone, I have to conclude that the Executive Director’s hiring led to Ciardelli’s departure. One member of the Northern Stage board told the Valley News that Ciardelli “was a little bit ahead of us,” which is an odd statement considering that she’s been working with the Board for sixteen years. Ciardelli’s comment? “There’s a lot that I’m not at liberty to say today.”

Maybe there were good reasons for the split. But we haven’t heard them. And I hope there were damn good reasons, because this is an awful way to end one of the most noteworthy careers in the history of twin state theater.

Vermont Law School, a worthy institution facing tough times. Enrollment is suffering due to a nationwide surfeit of law-school graduates. VLS is cutting staff and programs to rebalance its books.

Way back in 1985, the great folksinger Tom Paxton wrote a song called “One Million Lawyers,” which bemoaned the various plagues and disasters that have befallen humankind and then noted the most perilous of all: “In ten years, we’re gonna have one million lawyers!” Well, it’s been 27 years, and we have more than 1.1 million lawyers. On a broader scale, I’m very glad to see that we finally — FINALLY — have reached the market’s saturation point for legal eagles. But I’m sorry to see the fallout affecting VLS. I wish them the best in meeting their challenges.

The Skinny Pancake, for weaseling its way out of Burlington’s “livable wage” ordinance in its new contract with the Burlington Airport. The Skinny Pancake is a wonderful Vermont success story; two twenty-something brothers start out with a food cart, then build a restaurant in Burlington, then add another in Montpelier, and now become the primary food server for the airport.

But its bid for the contract was contingent on gaining exemption from the city’s requirement that all businesses pay a livable wage. And it got the exemption, even though two other bidders for the BTV contract were willing to abide by the ordinance. City officials say the Skinny Pancake was the clear overall winner based on a variety of criteria. But it’s too bad that the elevation of a homegrown business will come at the expense of its employees.

C/NET reporter Declan McCullagh, for setting off a firestorm around Senator Patrick Leahy — and for doubling down on his story even after it had been denied by the Senator. McCullagh initially reported that Leahy had amended his update of the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act to allow government agencies warrantless access to everybody’s e-mails and other electronic communications. The story set off a deluge of criticism (including a post here at GMD). Leahy quickly denied the whole thing.

His explanation: as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, his name is on the bill. But at this stage in the process, a number of amended versions are in circulation. According to the Senator, McCullagh got hold of one of those, and presumed that Leahy supported it. Which seems credible to me.

Faced with this denial and explanation, McCullagh pressed forward with his version, describing Leahy’s explanation as an “about-face” in abandoning “his proposal.” And the reporter smugly noted that Leahy’s denial “came a few hours after” his original article was posted.

Journalists (and heck, bloggers too) love to feel like they’re having an impact, and they love to take credit for doing so. But in this case, McCullagh is twisting the narrative to place himself in the center of the story — and to try to validate his original article, which seems to have been based on a misunderstanding of Senate  procedures.  

Big news at VTDigger:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency determined on Tuesday that the Vermont State Hospital and other state property damaged by Tropical Storm Irene was not destroyed. The decision runs counter to the Shumlin administration’s claims for the past 15 months that the hospital and parts of the Waterbury State Office Complex were destroyed by flooding.

The determination – which comes roughly one month after the agency rejected the state’s appeal for culvert reimbursements – means the state will not receive the 90 percent public assistance match it sought to rebuild the new state psychiatric hospital in Berlin and other facilities on the Waterbury site.

Well, I hate to say “I told you so.” No, actually, I love to say “I told you so.” Me, November 15:

The Shumlin administration may be part of the problem. There are indications that the state is trying to fudge the rules in order to get more money.

First, there’s the question of whether the Vermont State Hospital was really a total loss. After the flood, there were many who believed that VSH could be refurbished — at least as a temporary hospital, and perhaps as a permanent one. But Governor Shumlin was adamant that the state would never return to VSH.

According to Digger, FEMA has yet to determine what its actual reimbursement will be. But it clearly won’t be as much as Governor Shumlin had hoped. And it seems clear that he deserves a substantial share of the blame for this mess. He refused to consider a return to VSH. He pushed the rules, hoping to maximize FEMA dollars. And, just as the agency rejected Vermont’s request for money to build better highway culverts, it has now done the same for the state hospital.

The administration could appeal FEMA’s decision, but success seems unlikely. Failure means an additional burden on an already tight budget — or cutbacks in Shumlin’s grand scheme to reinvent the mental health care system. Either way, bad news.  

Sittin’ in an airport terminal waitin’ for a plane. Scanning my Twitter feed to kill a little time… when what to my wondering eyes should appear, than a twittish Tweet from the keyboard of Darcie “Hack” Johnston, last seen piloting Randy Brock’s gubernatorial campaign into the nearest iceberg. (And “earning” a cool 100 G’s for her trouble.)

Exit Polls Prove US Still a Red State Nation

Followed by a link to an opinion piece that reinforced the Hack’s apparently impermeable belief in the political strategy that just doomed the Vermont Republicans to mini-minority status.

An opinion piece… on Newsmax.com.

Yep, Newsmax, the ultraconservative website known for such gems as a 2009 column that predicted President Obama’s overthrow by military coup. Newsmax, whose regular contributors include Pat Boone, Armstrong Williams, Michael Reagan, Dick Morris, and David (not Rush) Limbaugh. In other words, a dismal parade of conservative D-listers.  

The Newsmax piece that caused Johnston’s heart to flutter was penned by site founder and CEO Christopher Ruddy, and it’s a classic example of conservative self-delusion.  

Ruddy’s examination of exit-poll data from the 2012 election, in which voters soundly rejected conservative Republicanism, is that it all boiled down to likability. Voters liked Obama better than Romney.

And that’s all.

So the only thing the GOP needs to do is find a far-right conservative who’s more likable than the Mittster.

Sheesh.

It somehow didn’t occur to Ruddy that one of the main factors in Romney’s unlikability was his (phony or not) adherence to far-right ideology. Republicans’ overall likability was torpedoed by its persistent and obnoxious promotion of social conservatism and pro-big business free-marketism. Does Ruddy really believe that a Rick Santorum or a Michele Bachmann or a Rick Perry would have achieved higher likability than Romney?

Ruddy also points to Obama’s lopsided support among black and Latino voters as cause for conservative optimism:

Next time, if Republicans woo some Hispanic voters and black voting patterns normalize, 2016 could see Republicans increasing their vote share by some 4 to 5 million voters in a similar, highly contested race.

Which kinda ignores a basic problem: it was Republican ideology that drove away minority voters. If they don’t moderate their positions on issues like immigration and the social safety net, they’re not going to suddenly convert 20% of black voters or 40% of Latinos.

I could go on, but you get the point. Ruddy’s entire column is an exercise in magical thinking. It is nonsense. It is, in Megyn Kelly’s wonderful phrase, “math Republicans do to make them feel better.”

And this is the tainted wellspring of Hack Johnston’s hope, the inspiration for yet another round of the Same Old Thing in 2014. As I’ve said before, I sincerely wish her all the best in her future political career. As long as people like her hold sway in the VTGOP, we liberals have nothing to worry about.  

Senate Democrats held their caucus today, and as VPR reports, voted to give John Campbell another shot. Campbell got 15 votes; challenger Ann Cummings got six.

The vote followed Campbell’s very belated mea culpas:

“There were a lot of shortcomings in my first term here as pro tem. I won’t back away from them; I’m not going to make excuses for them,” he said. “But I can tell you this, I certainly learned from them.”

Cummings was unimpressed by his deathbed conversion:

I’ve listened to the other candidate and he’s given us an impressive list of what he did wrong and a promise that he’ll change. But to change almost requires a personality change.”

It certainly took him a good long while to learn from his shortcomings. Ever since the Senate limped to its belated adjournment in a cloud of acrimony, Campbell had consistently blamed others for his inability to effectively control the Senate’s proceedings. But in recent days, he changed his tune; presumably his pre-caucus vote tallying revealed that he didn’t have quite as many friends as he thought.

We’ll see if his promises turn into action, and Campbell morphs into an effective leader in his second go-round. Color me skeptical.