(David Van Deusen is the Conservation Organizer for the Vermont Sierra Club – promoted by odum)

A New Model for Conservation in Vermont:

Securing Our Environment, Jobs, and Outdoor Traditions Through Local Control

Please show your support for the environment and town forests in Vermont! Go to the below link and sign our town forest petition today!

http://action.sierraclub.org/s…

Vermont stands at the crossroads of history.  As much of the United States teeters towards the precipice of reaction, Vermont has emerged, yet again, as a beacon of light in a darkening sky.  While Congress debates cutting funding for healthcare, our friends in the Vermont Workers’ Center have built a movement which has resulted in us moving closer to a Vermont based, single payer healthcare system. While Washington contemplates cuts to Native American community programs, our General Assembly officially “recognized” the Nulhegan and Elnu Abenaki Tribes. And as the pawns of Big Oil/Big Coal/Big Nuclear seek ways to liquidate the country’s environmental protection regulations, Vermonters are demanding that Vermont Yankee be closed down and replaced with “green” energy production. And again, while Congress strives to gut the home heating fuel assistance program, the Vermont Sierra Club, as part of the Our Forests Our Future campaign, is fighting to build local, town owned conservation forests that can provide sustainable firewood for low income and elderly Vermonters.

Last September, the Vermont Sierra Club launched the ambitious Our Forests Our Future campaign. Our goal from the start was (and continues to be) the building of popular support for the establishment wildlife migration corridors connecting the northern Connecticut River with the Nulhegan Basin, the basin to the northern Green Mountains, the northern Greens to Quebec, and the southern Green Mountains with our western border.  Doing this would not only connect our core protected habitat areas, but it would also link our forests with those in Quebec to the north, the Adirondacks towards the west, and the White Mountains and northern Maine to the east. The result of this historic task will be the generational protection of our animal and plant populations through the unification of the last great northeastern forests. In a word, we seek to build “resiliency” into Vermont’s natural environment.

    This task was foisted upon the shoulders of the Vermont Sierra Club and other local environmentalists not out of fancy or fantasy, but in reaction to the very real and looming tragedies brought to our collective horizon by climate change, industrial pollution, and irresponsible development.  In brief, we have a window to act, or we risk losing our forests and those Vermont traditions that count on a healthy ecosystem. In this, we seek to deliver to our children’s grandchildren a Vermont that would be recognizable to our Abenaki and Green Mountain Boy ancestors. Let us be clear; we are fighting to preserve our outdoor traditions and our Vermont Way of Life.

    There are different ways to build wildlife corridors. Our method is one that may be unique to Vermont. We are not trying to increase federal land acquisitions. We are not actively asking the State to buy more land. We are instead seeking to establish a mosaic of town, tribal, and community owned conservation forests throughout our broad corridor regions. We are doing this not only because we believe that Vermont lands should stay in Vermont hands, but also because local ownership is the best way to foster accountability and good stewardship from the local residents who inevitably will walk these forests. In brief, we seek to build on our tradition of localism and town sovereignty as an effective method of comprehensive conservation. We also recognize that this method is one that the great majority of Vermonters both understand and support.

    While the ultimate use of such forests will largely be determined by local people at Town Meeting and on Select Boards, the democratically elected Executive Committee of the Vermont Sierra Club, after extensive consultations with the Nulhegan Abenaki, representatives of the Vermont Workers Center, and our 3000 members, is advocating that these town owned conservations forests be used in creative ways which not only preserve our local ecosystems, but also bring direct social and economic benefits to the towns in which they are situated. Towards this end, we contend that the forests must be open to all Vermonters for traditional outdoor uses such as hiking, camping, cross country skiing, snow shoeing, horseback riding, etc.  We also contend that Vermonters need to have the right to hunt and fish these lands (which we see as a food security issue), and that these forests should be used by towns to provide free or cheap firewood for elderly and low income residents. In addition, we are encouraging communities to consider using the forests for low impact cooperative activities like bucket and tap maple sugaring, as well as for educational purposes. We also understand that taking land out of private ownership reduces local tax revenue. Therefore we are supporting sustainable logging, in areas not deemed ecologically sensitive and as approved by the County Forester, as a means to create public revenue and as a way to support sustainable logging jobs. And finally, we also respect that snowmobiling is an important recreational and economic element in some localities, and hence feel that towns should be able to have snow machine trails at their discretion. All told, increasing town ownership of the forests will benefit both our environment and the local economy, while providing social benefits to area residents. This is what we, as members of the Sierra Club and as Vermonters, are fighting for; no more no less.      

    But how do we build these new town forests? The Vermont Sierra Club recognizes that many small communities simply do not have the resources needed for large land purchases. Therefore, we would like to see resources from the Vermont Housing and Conservation fund better focused on projects which fit the above criteria.  We also have been actively engaged in conversations with our Federal Delegation about bringing resources from Washington back to the towns.  By our accounting, if the federal government can spend over one trillion dollars of citizens tax dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (*statistic quoted by the American Friends Service Committee), they can certainly find a much more modest sum to help Vermont and the northeast preserve our forests.      

    All told, the campaign to establish comprehensive migration corridors is a long term project, and will be achieved over years and even generations. Thus we will start now by building a movement, and we will secure all possible funding (public and private) for towns and communities as opportunities are created.

    In the meantime, we have been actively engaging our supporters and our 3000 members across the state. We have begun to build local activist teams in the Northeast Kingdom, Central Vermont, Addison/Rutland Counties, and in southern Vermont. These teams have been distributing Our Forests Our Future campaign pamphlets to the public, and they have been gathering signatures in support of town forests as a means to create migration corridors. We have also launched an on-line version of the petition (which can be reached at:   http://action.sierraclub.org/s… ).  In the coming weeks and months we intend to organize public events in support of the campaign and will generally demonstrate overwhelming public support for the goals which we are working towards. In short we will do what is needed to see this historic task through.

    Let it also be said that the Vermont Sierra Club is not alone.  To date, the Our Forests Our Future campaign has been officially endorsed by the Vermont Workers Center, the Green Mountain Central Labor Council AFL-CIO, the Nulhegan Abenaki Tribe (Northeast Kingdom), the Elnu Abenaki Tribe (southeast Vermont), 350VT, the VT Conservation Law Foundation, and the Global Justice Ecology Project. These partnerships are making all of our organizations stronger. Just as the Workers’ Center and the Abenaki are backing our conservation efforts the Vermont Sierra Club is backing the Workers Center in their Healthcare is a Human Right campaign and we also successfully supported the Nulhegan and Elnu Tribes in their quest for state recognition. Together, we are forging a coalition that will be capable of winning comprehensive conservation and social justice for all Vermonters. Furthermore, it is our expectation that these partnerships will grow as we are also presently engaged in discussions with many environmental groups, farmer organizations, the faith community, and sportsmen clubs. As we feel that the local forest initiative is in the best interest of Vermonters on many levels, we are confident that will continue to build a large and diverse coalition in support of this historic campaign.          

    In conclusion, it is widely known across these rugged hills that Vermont stands in contrast to a world controlled by money, corporations, and the few. “Freedom and Unity” -amongst Vermonters, these are not mere words but rather a statement of principles and common solidarity.  Together we will preserve our outdoor traditions, our forests, our communities, and our Vermont Way of Life. Together we will win!

THE VERMONT SIERRA CLUB WANTS YOU!

Support The Our Forests Our Future Campaign!

We need volunteers in every corner of the state to help us gather signatures for the town forest petition and to build our local organization.

Call the Vermont Sierra Club today at: (802)229-6399

Or email us at david.vandeusen@sierraclub.org and say:

“I Am Ready To Fight For These Green Hills!

We Can Only Win With Your Support And Direct Participation!

***Please show your support for the environment and town forests in Vermont! Go to the below link and sign our town forest petition today!

http://action.sierraclub.org/s…

( – promoted by odum)

(cross-posted from Vermont Watch, here)

Word is it appears there could be a meeting between Governor Peter Shumlin and certain members of his administration concerning the Vermont State Hospital (VSH) to be held tomorrow morning (Thursday, July 14, 2011).

The subject of the meeting is said to include considering the exploration of potential alternatives to building a new state hospital facility, which it is reported a member of the administration has taken the initiative of exploring behind the scenes of late, including speaking with various members of the mental health community as well as advocates and the like within the last several weeks or so.

Last week Agency of Human Services (AHS) Secretary Doug Racine was a guest on Vermont Public Radio’s VT Edition talking about VSH and the administration’s plans to replace it, here.

Also last week, it was reported to this observer about how no matter what results from the meeting or, any process that might come out of it, beds of the new brick and mortar variety were also to be in the mix in a major fashion and, therefore, it was not expected to be much of a major change of course from the current plan being floated and pursued in one form or another by the administration.

That said, although it is yet uncertain what the outcome could be due to the fact that most of these discussions are taking place well behind the scenes within the administration up to now, it is also possible things could still be rather fluid as well.

When the matter of such a potential meeting came up last month, it was indicated the meeting would include both AHS Secretary Doug Racine as well as Deputy AHS Secretary Patrick Flood.

While it is pure speculation on my part, since they have also been within the loop as well as due to their recently (re)sifting VSH patient data within the last two weeks or so, it would not surprise this observer if the meeting also included Department of Mental Health (DMH) Commissioner Christine Oliver as well as Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living (DAIL) Commissioner Susan Wehry.

In addition, since he has also been within the loop of course, more than likely such a meeting would include Agency of Administration (AOA) Secretary Jeb Spaulding, not too mention other members of the administration as well of course, including Deputy DMH Commissioner and, now also interim Executive Director of VSH, Rebecca Heintz.

If the reported meeting does indeed occur and, no matter whomever ends up attending as well as participating, it is completely unknown at this point what if anything meaningful might potentially result from the meeting and whether or not alternatives or, put another way, other options to building a new version of VSH will also be taken under serious consideration by the administration at its highest levels or, if what appears to be their current course and plans will continue to dominate and dictate future mental health policy.

What is rather sad in all this is up to now, the administration seems to be solely focused more on VSH as well as replacing it mostly bed for bed (including with their plan to use Brattleboro Retreat bed space) rather than focusing on the entire mental health system as a whole, which a new facility — even if it includes beds at the Brattleboro Retreat — and what will prove to be a huge cost, will not help and will most likely do great harm, just like the dependence on the current VSH has up to now.

In my opinion, building a brand new version of the same old thing based upon the same old treatment model does nothing to address what is wrong with the entire system, nothing at all, save potentially further bankrupting both it as well as the state, not too mention keeping the mental health system within a vacuum where, among other things and factors, prejudice and discrimination continue to reign.

There is nothing to indicate a new VSH will also include a brand new treatment model, particularly when the new facility will still employ most if not all of the same treatment, including institutionalization in its various forms (no matter how long or short), incarceration, forced treatment and forced drugging.

When she learned about the administration’s meeting taking place tomorrow as well as the discussions occurring behind the scenes, longtime mental health advocate Marty Roberts stated:

I think it is crucial right now for advocates and other interested people to keep the issue of community services in front of the Governor, Sec. Racine and all of the other people involved in making this decision.  I do not think that they have any conception about the value of community services, both in supporting people so that they don’t need hospitalization and as resources and supports when people come out of hospitals.

I am so afraid that community services are going to be cut because the administration does not get it.

The first round of the Wisconsin recall elections was held today, and there's good news.

You probably recall that the Wisconsin Republican Party organized a bunch of fake
democrats to run in the primary leading up to the recall election. It was estimated that running the fake Democrats, which the Republicans didn't even bother to pretend that they weren't behind it, were going to cost the state more than $400,000.

That's right–the party that was supposedly trying to save the state money by screwing state employees out of their pensions and collective bargaining rights–is making the state throw money away.

The result, possibly inevitable, came out today. All six fake Democrats were defeated, leaving the real Democrats to move forward to the general election on August 9.

One step closer to replacing those union-busting scumbags.

(On the Republican marriage ‘pledge’…Or…Slavery as ‘Retro’  Ya know, Hitler & his bunch did this in the ’20s & ’30s.  When you put out an outrageous idea over and over again, even if sometimes you say: “Oops, sorry about that one,” eventually the outrageous idea becomes part of what’s the norm.  Then gas chambers become acceptable. )

John Brown didn’t know

blacks would be better off

on the plantation

where a poor black child

didn’t come from

a broken home

he didn’t know

a black child would need

soldiers to take her to school

that some white folks would force

a black child to marry

outside her God-given race

that all this would lead

to rioting and looting

and the occasional lynching

John Brown didn’t know shit

about the value of being

bonded to your own people

that these chains of bondage

were actually a freedom

from everyday woe

according to John Brown

it’s good for a black child

to be hooked on crack

live in a ghetto not knowing

who mommy and daddy are

until she dies of AIDS

but we now make the pledge

to change all that

to go back to the good old days

when a black child lived carefree

and was secure in her place

with her mommy and daddy

when all black people

were our precious little childs

watched over by us their guardians

back when women too

walked the righteous walk

and did their duty without woe

oh this woe John Brown!

you flaming socialist abortionist!

abolition to your hateful legacies!

we pledge now to turn back the clock

on John Brown’s Godless revolution

restore the love of proper order

now and forever we pledge

no black child will walk the streets

with a hate-filled heart

because John Brown didn’t know

what would come to pass

when finally our eyes

have seen the Glory!

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

Recently, we’ve found ourselves talking about the apparent inability of anyone to hold Entergy accountable for its pattern of misinformation; about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission having lowered the bar on regulation in order to cut failing plants some slack and give their operators even less incentive to shape up; and about Entergy’s strategy to milk the maximum returns from their geriatric VY plant through legal stall tactics.  

Now it’s time to give a listen to the really big and scary picture on U.S. nuclear energy facilities and their potential for Fukushima-size failure.

Here is the best and latest video from Vermont’s own Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds Associates who is joined this time by David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists in a forum recently presented by the C-10 Foundation at the Boston Public Library.  Roughly fifty-minutes long, this video provides an overview of all the contributing science around the events that unfolded at Fukushima, then brings it on home to our own aging and dangerously under-planned U.S. reactor scene.  

Why Fukushima Can Happen Here: What the NRC and Nuclear Industry Dont Want You to Know from Fairewinds Associates on Vimeo.

(Wow.  Geeky. – promoted by JulieWaters)

The Legislative Apportionment Board (L.A.B.)has released their newest maps and completely changed the districts for Chittenden County again.  While the fundamentals have remained the same, giving Chittenden eight senators instead of six to reflect population growth, the boundaries have been fundamentally altered from both their first proposal and the maps from 2000-2010.  While these changes are not necessarily the final words on the map, the legislature has to approve it, they represent enormous change to both the county, the senate delegation.

First, let’s recall what the current map used in 2000-2010 looks like.  This map is comprised of Chittenden county, minus Colchester, which was merged into the Grand Isle senate district.  From henceforth it shall be referred to as “Old Chittenden.”  In 2010, Peter Shumlin won this district by a 53-45 margin.  It was an eight point margin, that was six points greater than Shumlin’s two point margin statewide, making the district a D+6 district compared to the state as a whole.

According to that data, if the numbers for the district are run using Leahy’s 2010 victory, we find that he won 69% to 27% (all numbers are rounded, unless specified) with third parties receiving the remainder.  Statewide, Leahy won 64-31, a 33 point margin, which is less than his 42 point margin in Old Chittenden.  Going by the Senatorial numbers Old Chittenden is a D+9 district.  It’s possible that the discrepancy between the Leahy data and the Shumlin data , (D+9 versus D+6) is that Dubie was from Chittenden County (Essex) and had a home field advantage of 3 points.  Either way, it’s hard to miss that Old Chittenden is Democratic

This is especially important to remember as all six senators ran in the same districts.  These senators, last elected in 2010 are Tim Ashe-D-P-Burlington, Sally Fox-D- S. Burlington, Ginny Lyons D-Williston, Hinda Miller D-Burlington, Philip Baruth, D-Burlington and finally Dianne Snelling R-Hinesburg.  This makes for a 5D-1R Democratic delegation, or a 4D-1R-1P if Ashe is considered more of a Progressive than a Democrat.  The new lines, as currently drawn not only necessitate either moving, or incumbent on incumbent primaries, but also running in districts that may be far less safe.  

More on the flip.

Chittenden West.  

This district is comprised of St. George, Shelburne, South Burlington, Williston and Winooski in Chittenden County.  Their totals for the 2010 gubernatorial election equal 9,110 votes for Shumlin, versus 8,271 for Dubie out of a total 17,707.  This is a 52% victory for Shumlin, against Dubie’s 46.5%.  Statewide, this 5.5 margin is 3.5 points greater than Shumlin’s victory, making it a D+3.5.  Using the Leahy data, Leahy won 11,660 votes or 69 % to Britton’s 4,956 votes or 29%, giving him a margin of 40 points over Britton.  Statewide, this is 7 points greater than Leahy’s 33 point margin, making it a D+7.  But what about the Old Chittenden?

They’re actually pretty similar.  Remember, Shumlin won the Chittenden district 53-45 for an eight point margin and Leahy won it 69-27 for a 42 point margin.  If we make those the numbers baseline for comparing the Old Chittenden to Chittenden West (meaning a margin identical to Old Chittenden is a D+0) then this new district is ever so slightly more Republican.  Shumlin won Chittenden West by 5.5 points, while he won Old Chittenden by 8, meaning Chittenden West is 2.5 points more Republican than Old Chittenden, R+2.5.  Leahy’s 40 point win in Chittenden West is 2 points weaker than his 42 point win in Old Chittenden, meaning Chittenden West was two points more Republican, R+2 compared to Old Chittenden.  All in all, this wasn’t much of a change by the numbers.

Ginny Lyons and Sally Fox are the only incumbents who lives in the district hailing from Williston and South Burlington respectively.  Chapter 2, Article 15 of the Vermont Constitution stipulates that a representative must live in Vermont for two years, the last of which is in the district they are running.  For Lyons and Fox, this won’t be much of a change, except for more compact campaigning and no longer competing against 10-20 other people.  There’s also the possibility of having a district where the senators are Lyons and Fox setting up an unlikely, but hilarious precedent where only those with animal names could be elected in the district.

Chittenden East

Chittenden East, according to the L.A.B. Is comprised of Bolton, Essex, Hinesburg, Huntington, Jericho, Richmond, Underhill, Westford and Buel’s Gore.  Thanks to Bruce Post I have been informed ythat a gore is a tract of land that has about 12 people according to the 2000 census.  It has not been included in the numbers.

This is a more Republican district, perhaps due to the inclusion of Brian Dubie’s hometown of Essex.  Running the Gubernatorial numbers, Dubie won this district by 2.5 points, getting 9,680 votes to Shumlin’s 9,175 votes, out of a total 19,212.  The percentages broke down as Dubie 50%, Shumlin 47.5% while third parties accounted for the remainder.  In this case, Dubie did 4.5 points better than he did statewide, winning by 2.5, instead of losing by 2, making this an R.4.5 statewide.

Taking the Senatorial numbers, Leahy won 65% to 32%.  This is a 33 point margin, which is identical to his statewide victory, although a little off of the actual numbers (65/32 instead of 64/31, a third party probably did particularly weak here).  This district is probably the same PVI as statewide, perhaps a little more Republican, but only by a point or two.  

It must be remembered that Old Chittenden was 6 points more Democratic than the state as a whole, so while Chittenden East is about equally Democratic as the state as a whole, it is more Republican than Old Chittenden where Leahy won 69-27 and Shumlin won 53-45, making it less appealing for a senator to run in, by the numbers at least.

Unless you’re Dianne Snelling.  Snelling has been a senator since appointed to fill her mother’s seat by Governor Dean in 2002 and has managed to win every election, despite Old Chittenden’s Democratic slant.  Part of this is explained by how Vermont elects its senators.  Rather than having 30 single person districts, where only one candidate is selected, voters between a nadir of one candidate in Grand Isle District and a zenith of six candidates in Old Chittenden.  This way of electing senators usually results in a split of the Democratic vote, by having many Democrats run for Old Chittenden’s 6 seats.  This vote splitting has allowed Snelling to win time after time.  In Chittenden East, with only two seats, not as many Democrats may run, worsening her chances, but the district is less Democratic than Old Chittenden, improving her chances.  All in all, it’s a bit of a mixed bag for both Democrats and Republicans.

Grand Isle-Chittenden.

This district was formed by merging the one person senate district of Grand Isle, which includes all of Grand Isle county (Grand Isle, Isle La Motte, North Hero, South Hero and Alburgh) and Colchester, with Milton and Georgia from Franklin County.  This has numerous repercussions.  

First consider the Gubernatorial data.  In this district, Dubie won with 8,714 votes compared to Shumlin’s 5,839 votes, out of a total 14,868.  The percentages come out to a 59-39 split in favor of Dubie, which is 22 points better than his 2 point loss statewide and 28 points better than his 8 point loss in Old Chittenden.  Good God, that must be so Republican even Leahy lost the district, right?

Wrong.  Out of a total 14,616 votes, Leahy won with 8,785 votes, or 60%.  Britton meanwhile earned 5,226 votes, or 36% of the vote.  This is a winning margin for Leahy of of 24 points, 9 points worse than his statewide totals and 18 points worse than his totals in Old Chittenden making it an R+9 compared to statewide and R+ 18 compared to old Chittenden.  Still, that’s a big discrepancy, Dubie won by 20 points, doing 22 points better than he did statewide, while Leahy only lost 9 points, compared to his statewide totals.

There are many different explanations for this.  It might be the home field advantage we have seen throughout the totals, but was no greater than a few points.  Compared to statewide, Old Chittenden was a D+6 with Gubernatorial numbers and a D+9 with senatorial numbers, not exactly a huge difference.  Compared to statewide, Chittenden West was a D+3.5 with Gubernatorial numbers and D+7 with senatorial numbers.  Chittenden East was the only other area to have a large discrepancy, R+4.5 versus D+0, but that’s not much of a difference and could be explained by the presence of Dubie’s hometown.  Yet Grand Isle-Chittenden is 22 points more republican than Vermont for gubernatorial numbers and nine points more republican for the senatorial numbers.  

That’s not the end of the story however.  As mentioned, Grand Isle-Chittenden absorbed the one person Grand Isle district, currently occupied by Dick Mazza D-Colchester.  Mazza, should he choose to run again, will be running in new territory, in a two person district.  To see how his new seat compares to the old, let’s look at his current seat, we’ll call Old Gregg, because, one, it sounds like Grand Isle, kinda and two, after 2 1/2 single spaced pages of discussing numbers, someone needs to throw a freakin’ pie.

Old Gregg is comprised of Grand Isle, Isle La Motte, North and South Hero and Colchester.  Running these numbers against the 2010 gubernatorial data shows that Dubie won that seat receiving 4,751 votes to Shumlin’s 3,687 votes out of a total 8,603.  The percentages were 55-43 in favor of Dubie, a margin of 12 points and 14 points better than he did statewide.  Running the senatorial numbers for Old Gregg, Leahy won with 5,374 votes, out of 8,439 total to Britton’s 2,752 votes.  The percentages come out to 64% to 33% a 29 point margin for Leahy, 4 points worse than statewide, making it an R+4.  

Again, we see a major discrepancy.  Under the gubernatorial numbers, Old Gregg changes from an R+14 to Grand Isle-Chittenden’s R+22, a far more Republican district.  Whereas under the senatorial numbers, Old Gregg changes from an R+4, to  Grand Isle-Chittenden’s R+9, making it less Democratic, but only by five points, instead of the eight point drop using the gubernatorial numbers.  

My theory is that Dubie, as a statewide elected official, in a close race, with money, running for an open, non-federal office was able to appeal to moderates in a way Britton could not, thus explaining the discrepancy.

Let’s also consider who is now able to run for these seats.  As mentioned, Dick Mazza, should he choose to run again, can run here.  His only problem being that it’s between 5 and 8 points more Republican than his old seat, Old Gregg.  That leaves one other seat in this district, that no incumbent senator can currently run for unless they relocate to one of its towns.  Baruth, Snelling and Lyons already have races in Chittenden East and West, while Ashe, Baruth and Miller are from Burlington.

Chittenden Central (Or the Mighty-B)

Perhaps the most controversial part of L.A.B.’s last proposal remains unchanged, all of Burlington is drawn into its own two person district.  There are many problems with this proposal, to be discussed after the numbers.  As to be expected, this is an extremely Democratic district.

The gubernatorial numbers show us that Shumlin won 9,129 votes and Dubie won 3,539 votes out of a total 12,993.  The percentages for this are 70.5% for Shumlin and 27% for Dubie.  This is a 43 point win for Shumlin, better than his 2 point win statewide and eight point win in Old Chittenden.  Statewide, Chittenden Central is a D+41 and compared to Old Chittenden, It’s D+35.

Using the senatorial numbers, we find Leahy won it with 9,891 votes to Britton’s 1,960 votes out of a total 12,560.  This is a total of 78.5% for Leahy to 15.7% for Britton.  These numbers make for an even more impressive win for Leahy, than Shumlin, a 62.8 point margin of victory, which is 29.8 points greater than statewide and 20 points greater than Old Chittenden.  

Leahy’s numbers are actually weaker than Shumlin’s in this sense.  Whereas Shumlin made Chittenden Central a D+41 district compared to the state and a D+35 compared to Old Chittenden, it’s only D+ 30 for Leahy statewide and D+20 compared to Old Chittenden.  This is likely due to the fact that Leahy superior statewide victory in contrast to Shumlin’s anemic victory.  Either way, it’s irrelevant as this is an extraordinarily Democratic district.

Therein lies the problem.  As Caoimhin Laochdha  mentioned in my last diary, this district is a Democratic and arguably minority, vote dump.  By creating a district focused only in Burlington, it has made every other district detailed,, except Chittenden West more Republican.  While these two seats are safe, they make it more likely a Republican could win in other districts, especially Grand Isle-Chittenden and Chittenden East.

On the flip side however, it creates perhaps the only district in Vermont where Progressives could win both senate seats.  Burlington is the Hub of the Progressive Party in Vermont, with all of their canvassing and voting outreach efforts available to the city.  For, perhaps the first time, they would only need to campaign in Burlington, rather than the (near) entirety of Chittenden County, making it far likelier they could win both seats.

Senator Ashe is aligned with both the Democrats and Progressives, but as Chittenden Central is so Democratic in nature, Progressives could slate two candidates every election and have a chance of winning both.  There’s little chance of a Republican ever winning, so that negates the concern that Progressives will split the vote and allow for a Republican to win.  It’s not inconceivable that between 2012 and 2010, there could be 2 Progressives in the Vermont Senate, both from Burlington.  These 2 Progressives out of the 30 total senators would be comprise  6.6667% of the total senate.  This is similar in representation to the number of (capital P) Progressives in Vermont, meaning a more representative legislature.

Of course, there is also the Doomsday Scenario.  In a Republican year, both incumbent senators could retire, say to run for higher office and Democrats and Progressives could run a combined 8+ candidates on the ballot to replace the retiring senators.  Republicans meanwhile would only run two candidates and a with the Progressive-Democratic vote split between 8+ candidates, a Republican could slip through.  This is a highly unlikely scenario however, especially as long as Burlington Democrats and Progressives have all seven Chaos Emeralds.

Finally, there’s the matter of residency.  Currently three Chittenden County senators are from Burlington, Ashe, Baruth and Miller.  There’s also the matter of Senator Philip Baruth and his earning power amongst voters.  In the 2010 election, he came in 6th getting 25,179 votes, just above the cutoff mark for winning a seat.  In fact he was separated by senate candidate Burlington Councilman and former Mayoral candidate Andy Montroll by only 265 votes.  While there’s the matter of 16 people running for 6 seats and the confusion and vote splitting that brings, Baruth appears to be the weakest of the delegation, electorally speaking.  Of course it must be noted that he was not an incumbent in 2010, as he will be in 2012 but there’s still the matter of running in a 2 seat district against two other more experienced incumbents Ashe and Miller.

Were this map to be implemented, one senator would lose their seat.  This could prompt one of them to run for higher office, such as Lieutenant Governor or Mayor of Burlington, to move, or to retire.  All that’s known for certain is that if this map is implemented, only two senators can be from Burlington, a city where three Chittenden County Senators call home.

This map is not final.  The legislature still has to approve the map.  Given the residency problems, it’s likely this map will not pass in its current form.  If it were to pass however, the delegation could potentially (though unlikely) change to a delegation of two Progressive Senators from Burlington, Two Republican Senators from Grand Isle-Chittenden, one Republican and one Democrat from Chittenden East and two Democrats from Chittenden West.  This would change a  6D-R1-0P delegation (Counting Mazza in Grand Isle who is effected by all of this) to a 3D-3R-2P delegation.

Works Cited

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/sta…

http://vermont-elections.org/e…

http://vermont-elections.org/2…

http://vtvip.e-cers.com/ballot…

 Loading ...

UPDATE:Upton and Barton’s BULB Act fails. The vote on the bill was 233-193 with five Democrats voting for the bill and 10 Republicans against it.One Republican voted present.

Conservative groups say they will continue to fight the light bulb law.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wi…

Call it the freedom to choose the light bulb you want or even the right to bare bulbs.

This week House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton will introduce legislation watering down a 2007 law aimed at phasing out incandescent light bulbs and establishing efficiency standards for light bulbs. The bill Upton will bring to the floor is built around Texas Oil Rep. Joe Barton’s  cleverly named retrograde effort called Barton’s Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act.

BULB Act repeals a provision in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that requires traditional incandescent light bulbs to be 30 percent more energy efficient beginning in 2012.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has a fact sheet (PDF) that shows what the present law if un-modified by the BULB Act would save rate payers in individual states. By their estimate Vermont households annually would save $105.00 in electric costs. These savings collectively, nationwide, would eliminate the need for 30 new power plants.  

First he was for it, now he’s against it. For Congressman Upton this is an ongoing effort to live down the fit of reason he suffered back in 2007 when he actually co-sponsored this law and supported bills aimed at phasing out incandescent light bulbs and establishing efficiency standards. Upton – a 24 year house veteran and wealthy heir to the Whirlpool manufacturing fortune, and once considered a Republican moderate – is rapidly phasing out that personality feature.

“It was never my goal for Washington to decide what type of light bulbs Americans should use," Upton said in a statement to The Hill. " The public response on this issue is a clear signal that markets – not governments – should be driving technological advancements. I will join my colleagues to vote yes on a bill to protect consumer choice and guard against federal overreach.”  

Perhaps Upton is afraid the burned-out incandescent bulb over his head will be replaced by a nice, efficient, lower-heat, more-light, longer-lasting, compact fluorescent. No new ideas.

This week, Reuters reported on the growing credibility gap among Japanese with regard to the ethical reliability of their nuclear industry as a whole, even as the Fukushima disaster remains unresolved.  

With Tokyo Electric already discredited, the industry has been further tarnished by revelations that Kyushu Electric Power Co. attempted to manipulate a public forum on nuclear safety by instructing its workers to pose as ordinary citizens and send e-mails in support of restarting nuclear power plants in the south.

“There is growing suspicion that power companies are playing fast and loose with data to support their cause and will go so far as to orchestrate public support,” said Jeffrey Kingston, director of Asian studies at Temple University’s Japan campus.

To their credit, the Japanese public actually seem surprised and outraged by this effrontery!  Over here, we’ve just come to expect such unethical behavior as a matter of course.

There’s little comfort for Vermonters in Attorney General William Sorrell’s conclusion that Entergy and Vermont Yankee’s misrepresentations do not exactly rise to the level of criminal behavior.  As the Free Press observed today,  incompetence in the administration of a nuclear facility is hardly more desirable than downright dishonesty.

“We found more incompetence than malevolence,” Attorney General William Sorrell said this week in announcing the results of the investigation. “A corporation of this size and this importance — I don’t mean to disparage cops — but this was like Keystone Kops.”

In a sane world, where concerns for public safety would trump all corporate claims, this finding would be…should be… the final nail in the coffin for Vermont Yankee.  

But, no…if the Attorney General thinks he can’t make a criminal case out of the whoppers perpetrated by Entergy and VY, we just go on as if nothing ever happened; and the NRC doesn’t even care that the operators have been publicly exposed (at the very least) as colossal incompetents.

Isn’t this sort of the corporate equivalent of claiming innocence by reason of insanity?  

I wish every American would listen to these 2 minutes from Vermont Edition on 6/23/11 where Bernie Sanders gives a reality check on social security.

for some reason the youtube embed is not working so here is the youtube link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

“Vermont’s challenge is neither unemployment nor overcompensation; it’s under underemployment and under-compensation”

says Bill Schubart  at the close of an opinion piece on VPR Wednesday. However the focus was not specifically on either the under-employed or even the under-compensated, but on departing Fletcher Allen CEO Dr. Estes. Schubart states that her pay package ($826,000 plus a potential performance bonus of $245,000), which he helped negotiate, was “right.”  

No reason to doubt that Fletcher Allen CEO Dr. Estes faced challenges and from reports managed to successfully meet them as she was paid to do. With 6,800 employees Schubart tells us the Medical Center is more complex than some of Vermont’s private businesses where some CEOs earn even more.  

By way of explaining, Schubart notes that private-sector executive compensation in America is an international embarrassment to democratic principles, and he seems aghast at the large and growing wage disparities nationally. He cites a recent Washington Post examination of these horrors.But apparently he feels Vermont is unique and any similar feeling regarding Vermont CEOs in uncalled for.

“Recent news reports indicate that Vermonters, too, feel their business and nonprofit executives are overcompensated. But are they? We all feel more secure singing in a chorus than singing solo, but let’s look at reality.”

 

By one measure executive pay, even in Vermont, is out of proportion to workers earnings: although Vermont’s Merchant Bank CEO Michael Tuttle is at the “modest” end of compensation at $396,069, his compensation is still 11 times the median worker’s pay (do the math: half of Merchants Bank employees earn less than $36,000 a year). In 2010 then-CVPS CEO Bob Young made $1,151,178, and Green Mountain Coffee Roasters head Larry Blanford made $2,406,207.  

After a lifetime in Vermont’s public and private sectors, Schubart confidently says he has

seen nonprofit leadership salaries ranging from $36,000 to $1M a year and have yet to see an overcompensated executive in that sector. Mostly, I have seen the opposite.

Therefore, he feels Vermonters who raised eyebrows at Melinda Estes’ pay package are piling on our homie non-profit CEO.   In some circles $826,000 plus performance benefits may be considered under-compensating, but by the standards of the crowd I run with that’s pretty rich. It is his turf, so Schubart could have a point about the package he helped negotiate being “right.”

However for a large number of Vermonters who have had  little or no increase in their earnings for years – and in the case of Vermont state employees, who’ve seen decreases in pay – it may be hard to spare much sympathy for wealthy Vermonters who apparently aren’t quite rich enough. Maybe it’s high time to start a concerted effort to hike-up wages at the bottom first. We can do that if we make sure the sacrifice is shared by raising tax rates on those well-compensated folks bringing home over $250k a year, as Senator Bernie Sanders has recommended nationally to President Obama.

Then perhaps we could help under-compensated Vermont private sector and non-profit executives catch-up to their national counterparts. Until then, they may do just fine, as Dr. Estes has.