It’s been a year and a half since Smilin’ Jim Douglas last graced the corner office. But there are still plenty of, ahem, traces… leavings, if you prefer… effluvia, perhaps… of his time as alpha male of the Vermont political dog park. We’ve got a couple of good ones right here: a defeat in the Vermont Yankee case that can be blamed, in part, on Our Dear Ex-Leader; and a former Douglas henchman now tainting the landscape to our south.

First, Yankee. The state of Vermont suffered another courtroom defeat today, as a federal appeals court threw out a challenge to VY’s license renewal by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The state had challenged the validity of VY’s water permit; the NRC had argued that the state had failed to raise the water-permit issue in a timely manner.

But here’s the good part, the Douglas dookie:

The court found that after the NRC’s judicial arm, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), ruled on Entergy’s application to renew the license in 2008, the state “sat silent for two and one-half years, raising their objection only after the Commission issued the license renewal in March 2011,” the NRC said.

Well, of course the state didn’t object earlier. For almost all of that time, it was being run by staunchly pro-VY Jim Douglas. Consider this his parting gift to Entergy — he ran out the clock on one of Vermont’s possible avenues for blocking VY’s license renewal.

After the jump: another stinkin’ lump of Douglas legacy.

Second, the recent foofaraw over the Edward M. Kennedy Institute’s offer to host a debate in the senatorial race between incumbent Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Elizabeth Warren. As you may recall, the Brown camp demanded that Vicki Kennedy, Ted’s widow and Board chair of the Institute, agree not to endorse any candidate in the race. Anytime. This entire year. Yep, give up her First Amendment rights. She refused; the debate, at least for now, is off.

The Brownies claimed that the debate’s fairness would be questionable if Kennedy later endorsed Warren. Funny thing: two years ago, when Brown was facing Martha Coakley, the Kennedy Institutre hosted a debate. Brown had no objection.

So what changed between 2010 and now? Well, for one thing, Brown is in a tight race with a skilled debater, and his campaign seems intent on limiting the number and visibility of debates as much as possible.

For another, Brown’s campaign manager this year is one Jim Barnett, the young Republican Karl Rove wannabe and former Jim Douglas hatchet man. A thorough review of Barnett’s wrecking-ball career can be found at Huffington Post; we’ll just mention that he is credited for bringing a no-holds-barred, unrelentingly partisan (and often bitterly personal) style to the once genteel world of Vermont politics.  

When you look back at Barnett’s history working for Jim Douglas, it’s obvious that the Kennedy Institute melodrama — and the patently unreasonable demand on Vicki Kennedy — bear the distinctive fingerprints of Jim Barnett. The guy who did Jim Douglas’ dirty work, while the Governor floated serenely above the fray, ensconced in a cocoon of plausible deniability.  

Thanks, Governor.

Supposedly, police are trained in a “use of force continuum” for determining the level of force required to bring a person under control.

The following is the recommended escalation procedure, from the National Institute of Justice, for use by police departments in the US.

Officer Presence – No force is used.

Considered the best way to resolve a situation.

The mere presence of a law enforcement officer works to deter crime or diffuse a situation.

Officers’ attitudes are professional and nonthreatening.

Verbalization – Force is not-physical

Officers issue calm, nonthreatening commands, such as “Let me see your identification and registration.”

Officers may increase their volume and shorten commands in an attempt to gain compliance. Short commands might include “Stop,” or “Don’t move.”

Empty-Hand Control – Officers use bodily force to gain control of a situation.

Soft technique. Officers use grabs, holds and joint locks to restrain an individual.

Hard technique. Officers use punches and kicks to restrain an individual.

Less-Lethal Methods – Officers use less-lethal technologies to gain control of a situation.

(See Deciding When and How to Use Less-Lethal Devices.)



Blunt impact. Officers may use a baton or projectile to immobilize a combative person.

Chemical. Officers may use chemical sprays or projectiles embedded with chemicals to restrain an individual (e.g., pepper spray).

Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs). Officers may use CEDs to immobilize an individual. CEDs discharge a high-voltage, low-amperage jolt of electricity at a distance.

Lethal Force – Officers use lethal weapons to gain control of a situation.

Should only be used if a suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or another individual.

Officers use deadly weapons such as firearms to stop an individual’s actions.

Unfortunately, according to the State Police press release regarding the tasing-to-death of an unarmed, suicidal person, the officer in question skipped the empty-hand methods altogether, nor did he attempt to use old-fashioned “less lethal” methods, such as blunt force.

“The Trooper noticed that Mr. Mason was unarmed, unarmed,  therefore he lowered his weapon and drew his taser.  The Trooper ordered Mr. Mason on the ground and Mr. Mason lowered to a squatting position, the Trooper continued to tell  Mr. Mason to get on his stomach, at which time Mr. Mason stood up and moved toward the Trooper with a closed fist yelling aggressively at the Trooper.  …  The Trooper continued with verbal commands for Mr. Mason to get on the ground, and after several failed attempts for Mr. Mason to comply, the Trooper deployed his taser, striking Mr. Mason in the chest.   Mr. Mason went to the ground and the Trooper immediately rendered first aid as he observed Mr. Mason was unresponsive.  The Trooper administered CPR and continued so until Rescue personnel took over the care of Mr. Mason and transported him via ambulanced to Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, NH, where he was pronounced dead at the hospital. ”

This scenario of instant escalation to tasers is becoming all-too-common in Vermont and elsewhere.

In 2008, the VT Attorney General’s investigation of back-to-back taser incidents in Brattleboro, resulted in the AG calling on the police in VT to implement escalation of force policies and training.

The history of taser use is not a pretty one. For more stories and information about tasers in Vermont, you may want to peruse some of the past GMD coverage:

Police use taser to subdue man experiencing seizures

Police using tasers “frequently”

Brattleboro Cops Use Taser on Handcuffed Protesters

Sorrell on tasers: “The police blew it.”

VSP wants 260 Tasers

Brian Dubie Says Stun Guns Are Nonlethal

Valley News floods the zone on the Taser story

Get Ready for the Whitewash

What is the purpose of a Taser?

And Don’t You Scream or Make a Shout

If you see a login box for sitemeter, just click cancel.

Sitemeter keeps the count of GMD’s pageviews. In addition, some of our advertisers may use sitemeter to get a count of how many people are seeing their ads.

Unfortunately, sometimes sitemeter glitches, and shows the login box to all site viewers, not just the person in charge of that particular feature. We’re working to track down the cause. If it’s something we can fix, we’ll do so ASAP. If it’s in sitemeter’s hands, we may turn off the service until it’s resolved.

Sorry for any inconvenience!

I don’t buy the political hay some are making over Cabot’s recent logo change.  I say this as someone who is neither a fan of Agri-Mark’s waste disposal practices in the Cabot area; nor of Bill Sorrell,  who seems to be unsubstantially criticized in this case.  

Even Governor Shumlin threw a few elbows on behalf of the “wronged” cheesemaker; but suggesting that the Vermont brand needs Agri-Mark/Cabot has the whole formula ass-backwards, and conveys the impression that the governor cares more about big business than little ones.

Agri-Mark/Cabot is to be complimented for proactively changing its logo to more truthfully reflect the origins of its products.  Perhaps recognizing that, inevitably, the growth of the brand will take it even further from its Vermont sourcing practices, the company did not wait to be told.

Because of its size and national reputation, many voices seem to be saying that Agri-Mark/Cabot should not be held to the same standard as Vermont Butter & Cheese and other award-winning regional brands.  In fact, some are arguing that the 75% Vermont sourced milk standard should be reduced or eliminated entirely.   This raises the obvious question of what  would be acceptable as the benchmark for “Vermont” branded dairy products?  Would 60% be a better number?  Or 50%?  Should Cabot butter, which contains not a dram of Vermont milk, proudly proclaim a mythical Vermont connection?

Sooner or later, given the trajectory of Cabot, even a lowered standard will become unsupportable as the enterprise grows far beyond the capability of its regional suppliers, perhaps sourcing milk from California or processing it in plants in Wisconsin.  We hope for the best for our regional entrepreneurs; but at a certain point, they may no longer be legitimately said to produce strictly “Vermont” products.

I believe there is nothing to prevent Cabot from producing a “Vermont” branded cheddar, for instance; and certifiably sourcing the milk for that single product exclusively from Vermont.

So, why have a standard at all? We didn’t for the longest time.  But it became apparent that our Vermont entrepreneurs were being competitively handicapped by unscrupulous companies that built their own successes on the Vermont brand while sourcing ingredients from cheaper and potentially lower-quality out-of-state producers.  The result threatened a degradation of the valuable brand that our farmers and local entrepreneurs have so carefully nurtured with their own investment over the decades in personal toil for quality control.

It was those same farmers and entrepreneurs who asked their citizen legislature to protect the valuable Vermont brand that they have built.  Surely, even those Vermont farmers who are associated with Agri-Mark/Cabot can appreciate this concern.

The name “Cabot” is, in itself, an ongoing reminder of the Vermont history behind the brand.  That seems sufficient, given that (according to their own website) the controlling cooperative was created in Delaware, is headquartered in Massachusetts, and sources milk from all over New England.  Let the Vermont brand continue to shine, symbolizing the small-scale, responsible husbandry and premium quality that distinguishes the state and it’s unique products.

( – promoted by jvwalt)

Today a woman with severe mental illness died tragically by lighting herself on fire at a convenience store gas pump.

Kasey Morgan, the store manager, immediately shut off the pump and ran to the scene where she tried to save the woman’s life with a hand-held fire extinguisher.  Two customers tried, too.

Ms Morgan’s actions exemplify the quick thinking and raw courage that is needed in a crisis.  The woman in flames was beyond saving, but her rescuers could not know this, and without prompt action,  this grisly situation could have ended in an explosion, with additional lives lost.  

Kasey and companions, our thoughts are with you tonight

This is a little old, but attention must be paid.

Remember last week, when VT Democratic Party chair Jake Perkinson criticized Randy Brock and the VTGOP for inviting Maine Governor (and staunch tea-partier) Paul LePage to Vermont for a Brock fundraiser? Remember how VTGOP chair Jack Lindley got all huffy in response, accusing the Democratic “flamethrowers” and “name callers” of engaging in personal attacks against LePage?

When, in fact, the Dems had attacked LePage purely on policy grounds. Not a personal attack at all.

Lindley closed his screed with “And  even if they don’t like [LePage’s] ideas, the least they could do is treat this man with the same civility that our side demonstrated during President Obama’s recent visit to Vermont.”

Okay, one lesson in civility from the VTGOP, coming right up.  

Let’s take a look at civility, Jack Lindley style. This is, verbatim, the VTGOP news release, dated March 28, regarding the Presidential visit.

“It’s a huge deal,” Vermont Democratic Party Chairman Jake Perkinson, said of the president’s visit.

“Yes, it’s a huge deal,” said Vermont GOP Chair Jack Lindley. “It’s a huge deal for Vermont taxpayers, who are still reeling from the cost of the worst flooding in the past 100 years; Vermonters who are still reeling from the cost of Obamacare and the skyrocketing cost of gasoline and heating oil. And for Vermonters who are also going to be faced with a projected 18% increase in the cost of health care under the Governor’s plan for the health care exchange and an additional rate increase in their electric bill from the Governor’s proposed renewable energy bill.”

Said Lindley, “I had hoped the President would take time to meet some of those suffering as a result of his policies. Unfortunately, he’ll be spending most of his time raising money. And according to WCAX, it appears he’ll be sticking Vermont taxpayers with the tab for state and local police and traffic detail. WCAX reports that ‘police officers are expected to be stationed at every intersection along the route – a special detail that’s going to require dozens of officers from surrounding towns.’ And South Burlington Police Chief Trevor Whipple says he expects the cost to be ‘community borne.’ ”

“The President says he expects to raise and spend one billion on his reelection campaign,” said Lindley. “The least he could do is reimburse Vermont’s taxpayers for the cost of his fundraising visit, rather than ask the people of cash strapped Vermont to subsidize the cost of his campaign. Let us hope that our esteemed Governor, who is still having trouble balancing the budget, will see fit to speak up on behalf of Vermont’s taxpayers and ask the President for reimbursement.”

These words are taken directly from the Vermont Republican Party’s website. (You’ll have to scroll down; it’s the fifth item on the VTGOP “News” page, and the items can’t be selected individually. Cheesy web design.)

So Jack Lindley is a hypocrite. And a liar — about civility, and also about that billion-dollar Obama war chest. No one in the Obama campaign — much less the President himself — has ever said such a thing.

Civility, my Aunt Fanny.

In addition to several high profile endorsements, T.J. Donovan collected the Vermont State Labor Council, AFL-CIO endorsement earlier this month.

This union represents over 10,000 workers.  

The 2012 Democratic primary will likely see approximately 40,000 voters. Roughly 36,000 Vermont Democrats voted in the ’06 primary.  The 2006 primary was a typical year relative to turnout and had similar dynamics to this year’s expected turnout. A record high 74,000 voted in 2010 as a result of the Shumlin/Markowitz/Racine/Dunne/Bartlett primary. Don’t expect to see anything close to those numbers this year, however. 2010’s numbers were the result of several highly skilled organizations in combination with millions of dollars invested in grass roots organization, voter i.d., GOTV and media.  

This year’s voter turnout will be closer to 40,000 votes. Given the likely voter pool, a union that can motivate a few thousand of its rank and file members (or member households) is in a substantial position to tip the election. A bump of 4,000 – 5,000 labor related votes would likely be the difference between Attorney General Donovan or Attorney General Sorrell.

If the Vermont State Labor Council shows ballots-in-the-box muscle, it will also demonstrate immense influence within a contested Democratic primary. Tipping the scales for Donovan would have long-term political benefits for the Vermont Labor Council.  

The other endorsements show that T.J. is convincingly presenting his message to influential constituencies in the policy making arena.  This labor endorsement, however, demonstrates important constituency support AND, critically, ballot box influence too.

If it delivers to the Donovan campaign, the Vermont Labor Council/AFL-CIO endorsement is a huge opportunity for Labor to pocket a fist-full of political capital.

Update 6/26: VTDigger has posted a good story on this subject. More info after the jump.

The decision came down last Thursday, and seemed to be a rare victory for Vermont’s campaign finance law. Vermont Right To Life had sought to overturn reporting and disclosure requirements for political action committees. US Judge William Sessions dismissed the suit, prompting a brief and boastful press release from Attorney General Bill Sorrell:

The court’s ruling provides resounding confirmation of the validity of Vermont’s campaign finance disclosure laws and the state’s ability to address Vermonter’s (sic) concerns about the influence of money in politics.

It was so reported by the Associated Press’ Lisa Rathke, and by Nancy Remsen on the Freeploid’s* vtBuzz blog.

*My nickname for the new, “improved,” tabloidy Burlington Free Press.

But not by Peter Hirschfeld of the Vermont Press Bureau. (Update: Article now available for free at the VPB website.)

But while Sessions upheld the contribution limits in this specific case, he said that if a political action committee operates independent of candidates, and organizations that contribute to them, then the $2,000 limit would likely fail constitutional muster.

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case especially, Sessions said, any limit on independent expenditures will likely be found to violate the First Amendment.

…The decision could open the door to increased corporate spending on Vermont elections, which have yet to see the kind of super PAC activity now influencing national politics.

After the jump: further explanation, and the health of our news media.

According to Hirschfeld, VRLC’s case was specifically tainted because it had failed to maintain proper distance between two political spending entities: its PAC, which makes direct contributions to candidates, and its Fund for Independent Political Expenditures (FIPE), which spends money on “independent” political activities.

VRLC argued that, because FIPE did not directly support candidates, it shouldn’t be subject to the state’s reporting requirements and its $2,000 limit on individual contributions. Sessions basically found VRLC guilty of sloppy bookkeeping — failing to truly maintain FIPE’s financial independence.

So it was a victory, but a narrow, procedural one. Sessions upheld the letter of the law, but he gave everyone a clear blueprint for how to circumvent its spirit. And that could open the door to more “independent” money in state politics. (And, as I pointed out in a previous diary, it doesn’t take a lot of money to create a strong presence on our political scene.)

This story is another example of how difficult it is to regulate political spending in a post-Citizens United landscape. It is also a rather astounding example of how shallow and unreliable Vermont’s news media have become. The Associated Press’ story failed to mention the broader implications of the ruling. The AP is the sole source for most other media outlets, including VPR, which offered only a brief AP rewrite in its newscast. The Freeploid, as far as I can tell, never published or posted a full writeup of the decision; its only coverage was in vtBuzz, an entry Remsen admitted was “based on a quick skim.” She promised “more reaction and analysis to come,” but it hasn’t come yet. Makes me wonder if the Freeploid has cut back on (or, as Jim Fogler would say, “improved”) its coverage of state politics. VTDigger, which does its level best with limited resources, did not cover the story at all — except to post Sorrell’s celebratory press release*.

Only Peter Hirschfeld of the VPB reported the full story — and his account is hidden behind a paywall, where most Vermonters will never see it.

Makes me wonder how many other stories are going unreported, or underreported. And with the economics of the business still in decline, it makes me wonder how much worse our news coverage is going to get.

*Update 6/26: VTDigger has now posted a full story on the court ruling and its implications for campaign finance. Recommended reading.

So far the only thing making this year a lively campaign season in Vermont is the Democratic primary race between incumbent Bill Sorrell and challenger T.J. Donovan for Attorney General. It seems every week we're seeing a new endorsementor position paper from both camps, and the campaign so far has been relatively substantive.

Still, while making his pitch for change, it seems odd that T.J. hasn't made a big deal of his latest policy position, which Jane Lindholm broke on Vermont Edition last week.

As you probably know, Donovan has made prescription drug abuse the centerpiece of his campaign, arguing that the impact of prescription drug abuse on public safety is a mandate to take both criminal and public health approaches to the problem, and to make it a higher priority than garden-variety nonviolent crime.

What was the hidden announcement Thursday? In response to a question late in the interview, Donovan confirmed that  he supports decriminaliztion of marijuana. You should really listen to the entire interview, but I'll just give away the surprise and let you know that about 24 minutes into the show, Jane Lindholm specifically asks him “Do you support the decriminalization of marijuana?” and Donovan say, “I do, and here's why . . .”

This seems like a big thing for Donovan, with nothing but positives for the campaign. First, it's going to be a low-turnout election, attracting mostly the core Democratic electorate, which is undoubtedly more liberal than the population at large. Second, with support from the State Troopers Association and the Sheriffs' association,  Donovan isn't in danger of being painted as soft on crime. Third, challenging an incumbent means he needs to be aggressive and make big initiatives to  gain visibility and distinguish himself from Sorrell. The decriminalization statement is just the kind of thing that should help the campaign.

There's still nothing up on Donovan's web page, and although my e-mail in box is full of his communiques I haven't gotten a decrim e-mail yet, but watch the news to see this story develop.

I think it's Sorrell's turn. 

Green Mountain Daily Community,

    You have a chance to help put right centuries of neglect of the First Vermonters. The Abenaki people of Vermont suffer from extreme poverty and have no land to call their own. Their culture is at risk of disappearing forever unless we act now. The Sierra Club has partnered with the Abenaki people and other groups to establish the first ever tribal forests in Vermont.

    Sign our petition today calling for the establishment of tribal forests for the Abenaki people by clicking on the below link:

http://action.sierraclub.org/s…

    Tribal forests will conserve wildlife habitat, and build and protect paths for animal migration. Additionally, the forests will allow the Abenaki to provide firewood for their elders, food for their families through hunting and fishing, and provide sources of revenue through sustainable forestry and maple sugaring.

Last month, the Sierra Club marched side-by-side with the Abenaki people and thousands of other Vermonters in Montpelier. The message was clear, through our slogan: Put People and the Planet First. There is no better way to show our commitment to our community, our history, and our environment than by supporting tribal forests.

    When you sign our petition, you’ll join more than 1000 other Vermonters who are already standing with the Abenaki people.

    The May 1st march, and the hundreds who have already signed our petition, has gotten our plan attention in Montpelier. Now, with your help, we can get this across the finish line.

    You can show your support by clicking on the below link and signing the Abenaki tribal forest petition:

http://action.sierraclub.org/s…

In Solidarity,

David Van Deusen

P.S. After you sign, be sure to “like” us on Facebook at:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/…

You can also see a video of an Abenaki tribal leader speaking at the May 1st rally at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…