I remember my days working on a small charter fishing boat down in Key West, Florida. More often than not we came in with a full hold of fish and happy customers (not in the hold too of course), and on these occasions we, the crew, could pick up a few extra bucks cleaning the catch of the day.

The process of cleaning, or gutting, is simple enough: slice along the bottom to open the fish up, remove all the innards, cut off the head and fillet the meat off the bones. This would leave you with … well … a bunch of dead fish.

Once again our state government has proven that our (for now) local public schools are nothing more than fish in the sea to be caught and gutted. What’s left is going to be temporarily nourishing at best.

The newest assault on our public education system comes in the way of “targeted reductions”. (Education chief sets budget targets for school districts, Barre/Montpelier Times Argus, 08/05/10) This is nothing more than a tactic designed to impress upon us all the state government’s supremacy, a desire to crush the hard earned wages of dedicated educators and kill off extremely important educational programs that our young folks depend on so much to prepare them for the future … oh, and it’s also designed to remove that local part of our (for now) local school systems by making it impossible for local communities to make rational, local decisions.

(Personally I’m not against reducing the cost of public education, and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt this can be done while IMPROVING both educational offerings and outcomes. But the reality is that the command and control freaks in Montpelier don’t want to do the one thing that would really allow this to happen: give up centralized control. ‘Nother discussion, ‘nother day.)

Williamstown recently experienced a community budget process that went through a series of 3 votes with the outcome being a “level funded” budget. I used quotes in the previous sentence because “level funded” really meant a $200,000 cut in educational expenditures for the majority of our (for now) local school district’s youth.

You see we’re budgeting for a little more than $200,000 increase in special education costs over the previous fiscal year. Yet I don’t hear a pip out of the legislature or governor’s office or Vermont’s ed department about the need to find relief for those costs we have literally no control over.

Quite the opposite: There’s a proposal floating around the state house to mandate our (for now) local schools come up with a policy and plan to reach %100 graduation rates. On top of that at least one Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Ms. Markowitz, is actively pushing a plan to turn our (for now) local school systems into prisons for those who have passed their 16th birthday and don’t want to be in school right now.

Nope … no help in spending less to be found there.

This whole process is a well oiled and intentional effort to gut everything out of our (for now) local school districts with the desired end result being a hollowed out, lifeless institution that in the end will do nothing more than churn out well behaved workers for major corporations … just pay attention to the rhetoric and policies coming out of our state government.

So gut the schools, get back at the teacher’s union and screw the kids … ’cause we got targeted cuts to make.

Vermont’s executive and legislative branches are out to gut public education!

Meet Paul Millman of Chroma Technologies.  He says something I’ve known to be true for a long time but it’s fairly amazing to hear someone representing a corporation actually say it:

Anyone who claims that high taxes are driving good businesses out of Vermont needs to see this video.  Anyone who claims that taxation is the problem doesn’t understand the first thing about business.

update The order’s currently stayed, so we’re not there yet

So, it’s official: Vermont is no longer cooler than California.

Full text of decision here.  

I never thought, for a minute in my life, I would be thanking Ted Olsen for anything.

Another link (hat tip Daily Kos): New York News

Also, in fairly hilarious news, apparently the Prop 8 supporters wanted this ruling stayed so as not to put gay couples through extra pain.  

By now, most of you have probably noticed the highway sign work being done on I-89, and, if you’re anything like me, you’ve probably wondered, “What the f*#k are they doing?”

To the layperson it may appear we are spending oodles of time, money and resources replacing and moving highway signs a couple of feet that were in perfect order where they were. The layperson would at least be right about one thing, oodles of money is being spent, $6.9 million to be exact.

The layperson however doesn’t see what David Dill, Vermont’s Secretary of Transportation sees. For that perspective I went to him directly.

Below you’ll find the transcript of our back and forth email dialogue. To his credit, Secretary Dill responded to my queries promptly and in detail as you will see below. Unfortunately, I think he still misses the point. So this is a highlight of our federal tax dollars at work. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Paving the way to a brighter future.

—–Original Message—–

Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 5:30 PM

To: Dill, David

Subject: Road Work Question

Secretary Dill,

As Vermont’s Secretary of Transportation, I’m hoping you’ve honed a really good rationalization for the sign work being done on Interstate 89 in Central VT. From the looks of it, it has to be one of the most egregious wastes of money the state has seen in a long time. With so much road, bridge, and infrastructure work waiting in the wings and rapidly deteriorating, it seems preposterous that the highway signs, which were totally fine, would need replacing, or moving a couple feet this way or that which seems to be the primary objective. I think the voters in the state would be interested in hearing what the agency’s rationale is for this work considering the state’s dire economic straits, job losses, and tax increases looming on the horizon. I am also including the news staff at VPR on this message hoping they could bring this story to the greater Vermont community.

Thanks.

On Jul 27, 2010, at 6:43 AM, Dill, David wrote:

David Dill

Date: July 27, 2010 7:00:15 AM EDT

To: “Dill, David”

Subject: Re: Road Work Question

Secretary Dill,

Thank you for your timely and detailed response. Just a few points. I’d be curious to know how many serious incidents have been attributed the lower retro-reflectivity? Are we talking about someone missing their exit and having to double-back? Seems like the few instances low retro-reflectivity would negatively effect drivers on Vermont’s Interstate would be reason enough to put the money elsewhere. Two, I am certain the Federal Highway Administration has equally strict standards for the quality of our roads and bridges and that upgrading those would take precedence to the reflectivity issue since they are much more likely to cause serious issues. And, three, since I’m sure it is public information, can you tell me the cost of the entire sign upgrade project?

Thanks.

On Aug 4, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Dill, David wrote:

David Dill

Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 7:21 AM

To: Dill, David

Subject: Re: Road Work Question

Thanks again, David. I appreciate you taking the time to address my concerns. A cursory look at Section 148 allows for expenditures on a wide range of safety related infrastructure projects, and highlights “high risk rural roads” for special concern; roads we are steeped in that are in desperate need of work. While I appreciate your dedication to what you understand to be the letter of this 2015 mandate, a state like VT needs to spend any and all available funds much more wisely it would seem to me, and that retro-refelctivity and breakaway sign issues would come way down on the priority list. $6.9 million, while not a huge amount of money in terms of infrastructure projects, when spread out intentionally could probably have gone a lot further towards alleviating safety concerns around the state. I am sure most Vermonters would agree, the relative reflectivity of our highway signs is not of great concern to frugal and prudent Vermonters.

On Aug 4, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Dill, David wrote:

In other words, we seek a balanced approach and believe we are spending those dollars wisely.  

 

( – promoted by GMD)

This interview with Peter Shumlin wraps up VTblogosphereTV’s time with our Democratic gubernatorial contenders. The strength of the field is amazing and each candidate brings qualities that would certainly serve us well at the helm. What was clear to me in interviewing Peter Shumlin is that he is rather quiet with his words, but the words themselves pack a punch. This combination adds to the sense that Pete Shumlin can get things done, that he is a man of action. Having a governor who makes progressive change happen could take some getting used to.  

Whether he calls the weather a “climate change heat wave” or discusses the unprecedented unanimity he is finding among Vermonters in defining our problem right now as a state, Pete has a way of conveying a compelling sense of urgency to the issues facing us. To address that pervasive sense of economic insecurity we are experiencing, Pete shares his Vision for Vermont plan. He introduces the plan by contrasting his autobiography with the present lack of opportunity right now for young people.

He discusses renewable energy jobs in the context of getting off our addiction to oil, so that the concrete goal of job creation is connected to a larger purpose that defines our future. His goals for telecom infrastructure, a single payer health care system, and early childhood education similarly are presented as necessities. The future is very much ours to make and the path forward is clear. He even presents something as unsexy as reforming our tax structure as a shedding of the past. Understanding how the economy now works in the 21st century will be key to improving our jobs outlook and keeping us at the forefront of progressive change. In Pete Shumlin’s Vision, those two goals are inextricably linked.

Stay tuned for parts 2 and 3.

[Note: No endorsement implied. Just continuing the VTblogosphereTV tradition of showcasing the qualities of the guest.]

Pete Shumlin’s campaign website

Volunteer

Contribute

Elections – Gubernatorial Primary: It’s a ridiculously obvious contradiction all too common among many on the left. On the one hand, some activists decry the fact that money is so important in politics. Fair enough. It certainly sucks. Then in the next breath, they’ll denounce any who discuss candidates’ fundraising as significant.

Money is either a big deal in elections or it isn’t, and if it is, then the fundraising of individual candidates matters. Indeed, the bigger a deal money in politics is, the more it logically follows that fundraising does matter. Cause -> effect. 1+1=2.

There’s been enough time since the financial filings to assess the impact of those reports on the race, and that impact has clearly been significant.  

Markowitz performed to her historically high expectations. Dunne and Shumlin performed above most expectations. In fact, if one factors out the significant contribution Shumlin made to his own campaign, Dunne actually came in a hair’s breath above Shumlin, quietly surprising many (it shouldn’t have). Shumlin put his own money where his mouth is demonstrating he is in this to win, and the endorsements he has accumulated in recent weeks demonstrate some serious campaign momentum.

And then there’s the Racine anomaly. Despite a collection of the biggest endorsements, Racine’s fundraising was in the neighborhood of Susan Bartlett’s rather than his more competitive opponents. The result? By all appearances, this race – rather than being a 2 way showdown, or even a 3 way battle – is now a full blown 4-way contest, and will likely stay that way until this month’s primary. This is as much due to the upward momentum of the Shumlin and Dunne campaigns as the questions of confidence that have resurfaced about Racine as a result of the filing.

Consider: Peter Shumlin has gone up with a TV ad. So has Markowitz. Word is that Dunne will join in soon. It’s a cold hard fact that these three campaigns are the only three campaigns that can afford to run any ads, and that fact may not be lost on many of the savvier primary voters. (Big correction: Turns out this is quite wrong, as Racine will be going up with a TV ad soon. Whatever the content of the advertisement, running one at all could prove a sign to voters that the money has started flowing again…)

None of which is to suggest that Racine is going away before the 24th, but his hopes of keeping the race between him and Markowitz are a thing of the past. For many who have been watching these things for years, the poor financial showing brought back all the old concerns about Racine that he had managed to consign to the past after his impressive initial filing last year; that he’s not putting in the work that needs to be done to beat the Republicans. Since last summer, around $1.2 million dollars has already been circulated to defeat Brian Dubie. That’s an amazing figure. Racine – who had looked like the front runner to many, and who had captured all the early, major organizational endorsements, could barely collect 8 or 9 percent of that pot for his own efforts.

Perhaps more dangerous for Racine, though, are the reminiscences of his campaign against Jim Douglas. Back then, Racine had a tight group of advisors who were so devoted to him at a personal level that they seemed to have a hard time acknowledging troubling news, let alone adapting to it. Flash forward to the present, and folks close to the Racine operation have suggested that this campaign’s inner circle actually expected their fundraising would be in the neighborhood of their competitors. Worse still, there are frustrated mutterings that they haven’t taken the low filing particularly seriously as a campaign issue, even though it obviously is. Such counter intuitive chatter is eerily familiar, and that hasn’t sat well with a lot of observers.

But the fact remains, Racine commands great loyalty within the progressive wing of the party. Also, he is immensely popular in his native Chittenden County across the Democratic ideological spectrum, where the highest percentage of primary votes will come from – an even higher percentage than will turn out for the general election.

And those numerous organizational endorsements (more than all his rivals combined) – what will their effect be? The AFL endorsement was only a boost for a news cycle, which has come and gone. The VLCV has maintained a sophisticated online persuasion effort that is doubtlessly feeding valuable information into voter ID lists. Will the VSEA and the Vermont NEA be able to turn out members for GOTV efforts? Yes. Will it be as many as the Racine campaign needs? No doubt these organizations were shaken by the bad buzz around the financial filing and will not relish the prospect of seeing their candidate come in fourth, so the motivation to avoid that scenario will be high. Expect some shaking of the bushes among the endorsing groups memberships.

And a 4-way race means that the winner is going to persevere with very, very few votes. It’s going to largely come down to voter ID lists (in which campaigns have identified their supporters in advance of the election) and get out the vote (GOTV) efforts, in which they work to guarantee that all those supporters actually show up and vote.

Markowitz has to be considered the leader in the post-campaign-finance-report world, but the significance of that lead is dramatically diminished in a 4 way race. In many ways, Team Deb would’ve been better off if Racine had stayed dominant and the whole affair had come down to two. Now, even with the the Markowitz financial juggernaut, anything is possible. In an election where 15,000 (or fewer) voters could e enough to win, one can still draw up mathmatical scenarios where Susan Bartlett comes out ahead. It’s clear that Markowitz Campaign Manager Tencher knows this and is taking nothing for granted.

In this environment, the sophistication and effectiveness of the early vote operations currently underway could well provide the margin of victory.

Mojometers follow, but without any further individualized analysis. Instead, there will be lists of endorsing organizations.

And in these last few weeks, given the depletion of the Democratic candidate’s coffers, it’s critical that you check out and join the Facebook group 1000 VERMONTERS FOR CHANGE as well as spread the word among your friends online. Click here for details!!

Deb Markowitz. Organizational endorsements: Emily’s List

Matt Dunne. Organizational endorsements: 21st Century Democrats

Peter Shumlin. Organizational endorsements: Teamsters Local 597, VT Freedom to Marry PAC

Doug Racine. Organizational endorsements: Vermont National Education Association, Vermont League of Conservation Voters, Vermont AFL-CIO, Vermont Building and Construction Trades Council, Vermont State Employees Association

Susan Bartlett. Organizational endorsements: none

(Good, appropriate conflict of interest questions.   – promoted by JulieWaters)

Republican State Sen. Phil Scott is running for lieutenant governor.  His latest Campaign Finance Disclosure Form reveals a Mr. David Dill, of Lyndonville, donated $300 to the campaign.

Is this the same David Dill who is secretary of the Vermont Agency of Transportation?  Assuming it is indeed that David Dill, where do we draw the “conflict of interest” line?  Sen. Scott owns a construction company (DuBois Construction) that does transportation-related work and is vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Transportation, and Mr. Dill heads the state agency in charge of keeping our roads and sidewalks paved.  A quick Google search shows DuBois Construction has bid VTRANS projects in the past.  Sen. Scott is a longtime member and former chairman of the Associated General Contractors of Vermont.  Democratic Sen. Dick Mazza, chairman of the Senate Committee on Transportation, also donated to Scott.

Sen. Scott is a nice gentlemen who undoubtedly cares about our state; I mean no disrespect to him by way of this post and realize these things (sadly) happen all too often.  But I’m troubled if VTRANS’ head honcho is contributing to the campaign of another transportation official – regardless of political party – who also happens to own a construction firm.  Assuming it is that Dill, not giving would seem to have been the ethical choice.  Furthermore, are GMD’ers as upset with Sen. Mazza for donating to a Republican’s statewide campaign as they were with Laura Moore for doing the same thing?

(It is our ongoing policy to promote serious pieces from major candidates for Vermont’s statewide offices. – promoted by JulieWaters)

Vermont is currently at a crossroads and this election will have a lasting impact on our economic future.

In order to revitalize our economy and create jobs, Vermont needs a new generation of leadership – a Governor who not only has a vision for where we can go, but also has the experience to actually deliver on the promise of creating 21st century jobs.

Yesterday, I outlined a vision for Vermont’s future that is based on lessons I have learned from my background in the public and private sectors: serving in the legislature, leading a Vermont-based technology company, transforming a 6,000 person federal enterprise, and working at a multi-national corporation.

The plan (PDF) starts by capitalizing on three of Vermont’s key assets: our authentic communities, strategic location, and unique brand. While these these factors provide a strong foundation for moving moving Vermont forward, they are not enough on their own. That’s why I introduce four concrete approaches in my plan  to make Vermont a leader in the innovation economy. These include:

• Building the infrastructure for 21st century jobs and innovation through investments in broadband Internet, cell service, and transportation networks.
• Providing the capital to allow businesses to grow through tax incentives, micro-finance programs and expanding the seed capital fund.
• Investing in education, universities and tech transfer programs to bring ideas from the classroom to the global marketplace.
• Changing the culture in Montpelier to stimulate entrepreneurship by making state government more efficient, responsive and transparent.

By combining our existing assets with the infrastructure, capital and state leadership necessary for innovation, we can make Vermont a place where entrepreneurs come to build their companies, the center of a thriving four-season tourism industry, the home to strong communities with vibrant downtowns, and a leader in next-generation jobs in industries like renewable energy and software platforms.

However, putting together a vision for economic development and job creation is not something done by one person. I presented this plan to business leaders yesterday, not only to to share my ideas but also to get their thoughts and feedback about my proposals. Over the coming days I will be holding meetings with other business leaders around the state to introduce my ideas in person and to hear their suggestions.

And that is why I want your input as well. You can read the plan and leave a comment with your thoughts, feedback or other ways in which we can move Vermont into a new era.

Vermont needs a new generation of leadership with the ideas, energy and experience to actually deliver on job creation and making Vermont a vibrant, innovative, 21st century state. I encourage you to read our plan and join our campaign to move Vermont forward.

Last week after an eight-month battle, and with the unemployment rate hovering at 10%, an extension of unemployment benefits barely squeaked through congress. It was quickly signed into law by President Obama.

Often little sympathy is extended to the unemployed who through no fault of their own suffer long and short-term job loss due to the recession.

Try multiple times an hour, think of it as a radio contest, just hit the redial button said Vermont’s former labor commissioner in early 2009 with little sympathy as she offered unemployed workers advise on how to deal long delays on her departments overwhelmed phone lines.  Unemployment remains high here in Vermont and even higher Nationwide.

Now, building on recent efforts to get this bill through congress, some national online networks of unemployed workers and labor groups hope to marshal a get-out-the-vote effort this November. These organizations are working to register the unemployed to vote and plan to offer traditional-get-out-the-vote assistance.  

Essentially, the unemployed form an enormous political constituency — more than 30 million Americans have been out of a job at some point during the recession — but they have tended to be disenfranchised. Labor groups and grassroots movements [are] hoping to change that — pressing the unemployed to do everything from calling Senate offices to showing up at Republican town halls to voting. (from the Washington Independent here and here.)

Traditionally the unemployed have low voting turnout rates, however the head of layofflist.org (started in 2008) said that “…rather than losing interest in politics since the end of the fight for extended benefits, the unemployed are ‘energized and motivated’ and have started looking forward to the fall.”

Labor groups like Working America, local political groups and the unemployed netroots are working to register the unemployed to vote and to offer rides, childcare and eldercare for jobless workers to get them voting. Of course, these sort of get-out-the-vote efforts are commonplace. They are also very effective.

A spokesman for the labor group Working America said: “We work against wrong-headed priorities favoring the rich and corporate special interests over America's well-being.”

The Times Argus has a story on how the Hartford police are trying to stonewall an investigation into a recent racial profiling incident there.

According to today’s paper:

MONTPELIER – The American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont filed a lawsuit against the Hartford Police Department Friday seeking the release of records pertaining to what appears to be the wrongful arrest of a man in his own home in late May.

http://www.timesargus.com/arti…

The story is that a local man was pepper-sprayed, handcuffed, and dragged out of his house naked (what, was their Taser broken?) while apparently suffering from a medical emergency. The news sounded a lot like the Henry Louis Gates “being in a house while black” incident last summer, but when local news sources tried to investigate they were stonewalled by police.

The Valley News has been unable to get the official reports, and now the Vermont ACLU is representing Anne Galloway over at www.Vtdigger.org in an effort to get to the bottom of what happened.

In a related story, the Department of Education is stonewalling the Times Argus in its efforts to get some important budget documents released.

MONTPELIER – In an apparent violation of the state’s open-records law, the Department of Education Monday denied public access to a document that may heavily influence the budgeting process at school districts around the state.

Legislative efforts to curb education spending culminated earlier this year in a bill that seeks voluntary budget reductions from every school district in Vermont. The legislation, which aims to achieve more than $23 million in cuts in fiscal year 2012, directs the commissioner of education to craft district-specific reduction targets.

http://www.timesargus.com/arti…

That story seems to be particularly egregious, as the Department apparently admits that the document, setting forth district-by-district budget cut targets, is a public document, but they just want to take their time in letting it out. They are promising to get the information out within 48 hours, which has led the Times Argus/Rutland Herald to decide not to sue for the information.

Deb Markowitz has made it clear that the decision by Vilaseca has no legal justification.

As part of the new media, we think it is vital to get at important stories that the government wants to cover up. I hope the ACLU and Vtdigger can get the racial profiling story out. I would also like to see some legal action taken against the Education Department. I can understand the fact that a civil action might not be any faster than just waiting for the Ed Department to decide to let the information out, but where is the sanction for such clearly illegal activity?