If for no other reason than lack of creativity a better reason is needed than the one currently offered for continuing to take taxes off the table:

Our citizens are strapped as it is, and we must acknowledge the competitive reality that our taxes are already high compared to most other states. ~  Gov. Shumlin

Vermont’s Spring legislative season aka budget/service cutting is in full swing and Peter Shumlin says in an opinion piece making the rounds of the state papers that his budget includes “strong medicine”.

We must have “fortitude” he says.  

It’s also time for a better explanation.

Governor Shumlin noted recently that fewer than 200 Vermont residents filed income greater than $500,000 in more than one year.

“My job is to keep those 200 people in Vermont and grow the base,” Shumlin said.

Why are two hundred Vermonters fed and watered so considerately by our governor?  

The rest of us, those prescribed “strong medicine” and from whom “fortitude” is demanded deserve a better argument for brushing new revenue (taxes!) out of the equation. The  well chewed assertion still in re-runs from the Douglas years that the wealthy will spread their wings and fly away if they pay their fair share is overworked almost to the point of embarrassment.  

This argument is particularly stale given that national and local polls have shown broad support for taxing the wealthier citizens to mitigate budget cuts.

A Vermont based poll shows:   Of the 508 respondents surveyed in the telephone poll, 56.9 percent said they “strongly support” “raising income taxes for households earning $250,000 or more per year.” Another 21.5 percent said they “somewhat support” the proposal. Slightly more than 11 percent said they “strongly oppose” it; 7.1 percent “somewhat oppose” it; and 3 percent “don’t know.”  

Before this interview, I must testify I knew almost nothing about the Supreme Court of Vermont (SCOV). I did not know how many Justices there are, what their names are, or which Governors appointed which Justices. Within moments of watching this clip with Andrew Delaney and Daniel Richardson of SCOV Law blog, you will have the answers to all of these questions. I am amazed by my level of previous ignorance about Vermont’s highest judicial body and grateful to these cultured barristers for dispensing their erudition with such levity.

Beyond a general outline of the make up of the court, we got to discuss recent SCOV cases like Andrew’s piece Sex, drugs, and ‘Rock’ & Roll. The combination of extreme behavior and serious legal issues make for compelling reading and generate discussion about the use of humor in reporting such a case.

Daniel’s piece Do You Dare Enter . . . The Judgment Zone? likewise is operating on multiple levels. The specifics of the case document a man’s unravelling as he tries to collect an award, but generally the lesson for the public is that when some one wins a monetary judgment, that is often where the battles begins, not ends as is often portrayed in Hollywood narratives. SCOV Law is really in the business of demystifying the law, and presenting that mission with enough humor so that a non-lawyer may actually want to read summary and analysis of legal proceedings.

SCOV Law started last fall but has already hit its milestone 100th post, and with a stable of eight attorney/writers, the range of style and expertise is vast. They have summarized every SCOV case since July 2010 and have recently signed on VT Legal Historian Paul Gillies to present significant cases in SCOV history. Also they recently rolled out Project Bierce, a page of legal definitions that might make one chuckle. So check out the SCOV Law blog, already!

( – promoted by odum)

Open government is good government!  Shutting the public out of government deliberations because of matters of inconvenience or fear of embarrassment are not valid reasons. When in doubt, give it out – instead of the attitude of when in doubt, take me to court!

Access to government records is important to our democratic process and the overall function of government. By Vermont law, “any written or recorded information, regardless of physical form or characteristics, which is produced or acquired in the course of public agency business” is a public record.  Some public records are exempt, in whole or in part, but they are still public records and must be managed in accordance with law.  Proper public records management is key to access.

Currently, there are about 250 public record exemptions. Some are there to protect personal information in government records.  The goal of our right to know, after all, is to make government, not you, transparent.  Some are thought to protect our security.  All are there for us to review, reconsider, and revise; no exemption is exempt from our scrutiny.  My office has a Right to Know web page (button on the home page) on which you can learn more about Public Records and their exemptions.

There is legislation (H. 73) moving through the General Assembly that has as its primary goal improving access to public records. Following are a list of principles that the Secretary of State’s Office believes should guide the language of the bill:

• Change “may” to “shall” for mandatory attorneys’ fees without condition.

• Inspection of records should continue to be free.

• Maintain timely delivery of documents – two days (current) v. three days (house proposal).

• Ombudsman to educate, advise and maybe issue opinions on access to records.

• A small and manageable committee to review, clarify, and eliminate exemptions.

• Maintain 1st level of appeal of government employee denial to agency head.

• One set of rules for all government, both state and local.

• Information database documenting requests for public documents should be improved, maintained and used by the General Assembly to review exemptions to our public records law.

If these principles are incorporated, exercising your right to public records will become less intimidating.

My office is working with the Shumlin Administration to improve coordination of State agency management of records and responses to public records requests. This is being accomplished through the efforts  of our Vermont State Archives and Records Administration (VSARA) as it develops its capacity to offer training and advice on how to implement public records management; and how to collect and analyze data through the website clearinghouse.

However, we must continue to do better – state and local governments are at a records management crossroads as we all try to deal with the tremendous volume of paper records and an even greater volume of electronic records. We must be honest, if we are serious about improving access to government information, it will take additional resources.

Let the sun shine in and on government – let’s restore our faith in government.

# # #

Secretary of State Jim Condos took office on January 6 of this year and previously has served in the Vermont State Senate.

I thought it would be worthwhile to try to get a discussion going on this topic.    We've already had a diary on this topic, and I don't want to undercut it.

A conversation with a group of friends last night, though, made me think that there is a side of the issue that most people aren't seeing, and wouldn't necessarily even think about without prompting.    

Part of the disagreement comes from the very names used for the legislation. Supporters tend to call it "death with dignity" while opponents prefer "physician assisted suicide". Obviously, each preferred name is a product of spin, but the spin reveals a central disjunction between two world views.  

Before we get to that, though, a little bit about who the sides are. It's easy to picture the "pro" side: liberal people like us, people who value civil liberties and think that choosing to end one's life is a natural right for all people; people who believe they should have the right to direct the course of their medical treatment; people who have seen loved ones go through horrible, painful deaths and don't want that for themselves. I'm someone like that.  

The "cons," though, are not primarily people who think the Bible's injunction "Thou shalt not kill" applies in this situation, and that humans shouldn't go messing with god's right to determine the beginning and ending of life. No, the cons are disability rights people, and unless you spend time engaging with them you might not understand just how radically different from the standard liberal perspective the disability rights perspective is.  

Let's take the title of the bill. Who could object to "death with dignity"? Isn't that something we can all relate to?  

Here's how. If the policy of the state of Vermont is that once you have a certain medical condition or severity of disability your only chance to have dignity is by dying, what does that say to the people all over the state living with disabilities who need assistance to get through the activities of daily living that the rest of us take for granted?  

If dignity comes through dying, does that mean living with assistance is without dignity?  

If we adopt this bill, will our state policy be to send a message to everyone living with a disability that it is impossible for them to live with dignity? Or a message to everyone, with or without a disability, that if you need a certain level of assistance you can no longer have, and can't expect to have, the human dignity that we are all entitled to?  

Or, to put it in the stark terms that a friend uses, are we adopting the policy that tells people you can't live with dignity if you need someone to wipe your ass?  Do we want to rush into that world view?  

What about the alternate title of the bill, physician assisted suicide. Opponents of the bill argue that the idea that a physician would assist one to commit suicide is the very antithesis of the proper role of doctors, to help preserve life. Supporters, while rejecting this designation, argue that it is entirely proper to allow physicians to assist people in the extremities of medical conditions that people face. Again, different world views.

Finally, will death with dignity/physician assisted suicide put pressure on people to go along with it to save the physical, financial, and emotional burden on family members? I think the evidence is unclear on this, but it's a valid question to ask.  

VPR has devoted an entire Vermont Edition to this debate, and the advocates make the arguments better than I could. I urge you to listen to it.

I also encourage you, though, to consider how the world would look if you were on the other side of this divide, because it's no more than a moment's inattention behind the wheel or a cerebro-vascular accident that could be waiting for you tomorrow morning that separates you from a very different existence.

No matter how much devastation takes place overseas, it just isn’t smart to take your eye off the ball here at home.  Inevitably, someone will be up to no good while the rest of us are distracted.  

Case in point:  the revelation in Seven Days that an effort is being made by former ANR officials  to quash a bill ensuring due process for aggrieved citizens.  The intention of this bill (H.258) is to provide opportunity for private individuals and citizen groups  to weigh-in on the enforcement of permit requirements.

Former Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources, Tom Torti,  and former ANR chief counsel, Warren Coleman are in the lobbying business these days; Torti, as president of the Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce; and Coleman as an operative of the lobbying firm of Mclean, Meehan & Rice .  Even as the ANR undergoes a brisk housecleaning in the wake of the new administration, these ex- public servants wasted no time before demonstrating that their loyalty lies with the developers and corporations rather than the people of Vermont.

 Shay Totten sums up their position in a nutshell:

Why do they object to the proposed bill? It’ll send the wrong message to Vermont’s polluters, er, businesses: that Vermont is not friendly to development

.

Among Messr. Torti’s and Coleman’s handlers are some of the usual suspects.   As all Chambers of Commerce tend to get their marching orders from the U.S. C of C, we all know where their interests lie.  Other than a vague reference to complaints by “real estate developers” (I’ll just bet!), Mr. Coleman declined to share with Seven Days who exactly he is serving with his lobbying efforts in this case; but the general client list of Mclean Meehan & Rice includes both Vermont Yankee and Cabot (a.k.a. Agrimark.) Vermont Yankee’s interest in thwarting public participation in the review and enforcement process needs no explanation, as they make almost weekly appearances in GMD’s rogues gallery of environmental offenders.  

Agrimark/Cabot, as you may recall, has been dodging complaints by local residents concerning the true nature of material characterized as “dairy waste” that is routinely dispersed through spraying over farmlands. Under the Douglas administration, the ANR demonstrated great reluctance to consider those local complaints.

Besides Cabot and VY, the International Bottled Water Association is another client of MM&R that might have particular interest in frustrating participation by local citizens.

H.258 recognizes and enables the value that accessibility brings to the enforcement process.  State agencies do not always have the resources to vigilantly monitor permit requirements once they have been established.  As became  apparent at the ANR under Jim Douglas, sometimes the political culture gets in the way.  Passage of H.258 will ensure that, going forward, no matter who holds the reins of regulation in Vermont, the voices of concerned citizens will always have a place in the enforcement process.

That Torti and Coleman have so easily transitioned into industry shills from positions of power in the environmental permit system says a lot about the broken culture inside the Agency of Natural Resources throughout the Douglas years.  

I am just trying to imagine current ANR secretary, Deb Markowitz, and current chief counsel, Jon Groveman, as lobbyists for polluting industries.  Nope; it’s simply beyond the imagination.

(originally posted to Vermont Watch, here)

Imagine being one of the many individuals or families across Vermont who are in need of rental assistance in order to afford to pay the rent for an apartment.

Further imagine having been among the 4,017 individuals or families currently on the waiting list for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program administered by the Vermont State Housing Authority (VSHA) and having one’s hopes raised after receiving a letter about how such a rental assistance voucher was available (sample issuance letter, here).

However, when it comes to real-world experiences, beyond imagining is what one also eventually comes to learn about how difficult it can be to manage to find a place with which to rent under the HCV program guidelines within the sixty (60) day period one has to do so.

Then, once more, imagine receiving another letter stating how “[d]ue to insufficient federal funding at this time,  VSHA must rescind the voucher which was recently issued …”. This means the “voucher is no longer active” and VSHA could not “consider any requests for tenancy approval” and they were unable to provide assistance at this time.

Sixty-six (66) individuals or families across the state who in fact recently received the latter letter (sample rescinding letter, here), as well as advocates and service providers who learned about such from some of their clients they work with on an ongoing basis, were left with only being able to imagine the worse.

Seven (7) of these individuals or families who had already managed to line up housing after having received the initial notification letter were able to actually still receive their voucher.

Although this leaves fifty-nine (59) individuals or families in limbo when it comes to being able to rent an affordable, safe and decent place with which to live for the time being, the decision to rescind the vouchers allowed VSHA to return them to the top of the HCV waiting list for when funding becomes available to once again award vouchers to these persons or families.

During a telephone interview with Kathleen Berk, Director of Housing Program Administration for VSHA, late last week as well as along with related information provided within a follow-up e-mail sent shortly afterwards concerning these matters, Ms. Berk reported how the “VSHA waiting list for Section 8 HCV assistance closed on September 30, 2010.  At the time the waiting list closed, there were 4017 applicants listed.  Opening and closing the waiting list is a normal administrative function. … [W]hen the waiting list opened on October 1, 2009, there were just 300 applicants listed.”

The follow-up e-mail included information about how “VSHA’s current  average HAP (Housing Assistance Payment) is approximately $528 per month.  VSHA’s 2010  funded  HAP was $470/unit/month – significantly less than our current HAP expense.” (note: emphasis mine)

The change in the average HAP expense is said to be in part a result of some individuals or families having far less available income due to the poor economy, whether due to having less hours of employment, loss of or changes in employment or, lessening of employment income or, lessening or loss of income benefits compared to the previous year(s), it therefore requires a greater amount of the rent to be subsidized.

Under the HCV program, an eligible individual or family pays up to thirty percent (30%) of their adjusted gross income toward the rent and the Public Housing Authority (PHA) subsidizes the rest.

However, if the income of an individual or family goes up, then their contribution toward the rent goes up.

In certain cases where an individual or family might lose their income while on the program, the PHA subsizes the entire amount of the rent. This allows such persons or families to remain housed while they seek employment or apply for income benefits.

In addition, the cost of housing units within the state remains high.

Meanwhile, although HAP expenses have been increasing, what VSHA receives to cover the cost of the HCV program has remained the same.

According to an internal memo issued by Ms. Berk that was sent to VSHA staff last month (read memo, here; posted with permission), the course of action to rescind the 59 recently issued vouchers had been necessitated at least in part due to the HCV program being funded at fiscal year 2010 levels as a result of inaction by Congress to pass a budget for the 2011 fiscal year.

Among the unknowns and stressors is how much the program will be funded when the new budget eventually gets passed by Congress.

Within the memo Ms. Berk reported how “[t]he HCV program is the agency’s single largest rental assistance program, with a budget of approximately $19,000,000. Given the likelihood that congress will fund the voucher program budget this year – based on 2010 numbers, we are needing to take proactive steps to prevent the need to terminate contracts later in the fiscal year.”

The memo continued to state how “[f]or example, if we were to continue business as usual – continue leasing voucher units up to our baseline allocation using the payment standards in-place today, we would need an additional 2.1 million dollars in budget authority to support these additional HAP expenses. Or, another way of looking at this is we would have a $2.1 million dollar shortfall – that could only be resolved by terminating existing contracts of assisted households. This is not anything we ever want to do.”

Ms. Berk also mentioned how their “goal to reduce voucher utilization over the remaining months in the fiscal year by 200 households.”

The plan to achieve this goal includes not reissuing vouchers returned to the HCV program whether due to a recipients income having changed to a level that no longer allows them to remain eligible or their having moved out of state or so on.

To learn more about these matters, view or read a report by WPTZ – Channel 5 TV – News regarding VSHA closing its HCV waiting list last year, here. In addition, listen to an interview by Jane Lindholm of Vermont Public Radio (VPR) of Richard Williams, Executive Director of VSHA, concerning these matters as well, here.

As far as what one can do to help address concerns they might have about these matters, several of those spoken with while doing research for this story said it would be crucial for people to contact their congressional delegation and let them know of such concerns as well as what should be done.

Vermont’s Congressional Delegation:

• Congressman Peter Welch (D-VT)
• Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
• Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

Housing related informational resources:

• Vermont Housing Awareness Campaign
• Vermont Affordable Housing Coalition
• Vermont Housing Data
• Vermont Department of Housing and Community Affairs
• Vermont Housing and Conservation Board: Housing Programs
• Renting in Vermont Handbook

The House Healthcare Committee is in the final stages of marking up H.202 and we understand they could be voting the bill out of committee tomorrow.

It is important that everyone make their voices heard, go to www.workerscenter.org/takeaction to send an email and call Sgt-at-arms to let your representatives know you believe healthcare is a human right!

Check out this new VIDEO/grassroots PSA: “UNIVERSALITY”

http://www.workerscenter.org/psa2

UPDATE: The bill that allows Michigan’s Governor Rick Snyder to declare a “financial emergency” — impose a dictator (a person or a corporation) on any town or city or school district, dissolve any election, and abrogate any and all existing contracts, including union contracts — is now law, signed by the (ahem) duly elected leader of state government as of yesterday. Maddow had it last night, and it was posted on Central Michigan Life today. Our condolences to those who now are living in the Michigan gulag. ~ NanuqFC

Steve Benen, over at Washington Monthly, yesterday ran a piece on what’s happening in Michigan while most of the Left are watching Wisconsin.

He’s quoting E. D. Kain, writing for Forbes. Some excerpts:

Newly elected [Michigan] Republican governor, Rick Snyder, is set to pass one of the most sweeping, anti-democratic pieces of legislation in the country — and almost no one is talking about it.

Snyder’s law gives the state government the power not only to break up unions, but to dissolve entire local governments and place appointed “Emergency Managers” in their stead. But that’s not all — whole cities could be eliminated if Emergency Managers and the governor choose to do so. And Snyder can fire elected officials unilaterally, without any input from voters. It doesn’t get much more anti-Democratic than that.

Except it does. The governor simply has to declare a financial emergency to invoke these powers — or he can hire a private company to declare financial emergency and take over oversight of the city. That’s right, a private corporation can declare your city in a state of financial emergency and send in its Emergency Manager, fire your elected officials, and reap the benefits of the ensuing state contracts.

[emphasis added]

Those anti-democratic powers include undoing the results of elections, dissolving or disincorporating municipal governments, and canceling union contracts.

Why would Michigan cities be in such financial trouble? Well, because the Michigan governor has massively cut state aid to those cities, says Benen. The plan has been characterized as “financial martial law.” We’re talking about towns essentially being sold off or given to corporations, becoming wholly owned subsidiaries of favored firms, the fullest realization of the concept “company town.”

Typically, Rachel Maddow was on the case before most MSM took notice (video on the flip).

Maddow’s clip from March 8 (pay particular attention to Naomi Klein’s analysis):

Klein calls the Citizens United Supreme Court decision the moment when the corporations “went nuclear” against the working and middle class. And now she says, “they’re going after the slingshots” (the unions as the last stand against the total corporatization of America) left to the ordinary people.

The closing message is worth taking to heart: when these tactics are exposed while they’re happening, sometimes the unions and the people win. The corporations are not unstoppable.