(In keeping with GMD’s policy of featuring first-person diaries by candidates to statewide office on our front page, here is the latest from Matt Dunne: – promoted by Sue Prent)

Transparency is not about a policy here and a disclosure there. Transforming a public enterprise into a transparent and effective management structure requires a culture change.  Successful transformational managers in the public and private sectors are those who lead by example. This is why we need to begin, even as candidates, to be more transparent.

Currently, there are no standards or guidelines for financial disclosure in Vermont. Last week I announced I would be following Congressional protocol and would submit the same form required for Congressman Welch and Senators Leahy and Sanders on the same date required for all members of Congress: May 17th.

All of the candidates for Governor have submitted and publicized some part of a financial disclosure. This was a step in the right direction, but demonstrated the inconsistency inherent in the voluntary disclosure process we now employ.  I asked the other candidates to join me in adhering to the Federal requirements and timelines in order to provide a uniform standard of disclosure.

I was surprised by the response from the campaigns who, with the exception of Doug Racine, all told the Times Argus they would not be submitting a disclosure form. Senator Bartlett posted her response here on GMD, and while I respectfully disagree with her position, I appreciate that she provided thoughtful discourse to the debate.

I wanted to take this opportunity now that my disclosure is public (you can find it at http://www.mattdunne.com/finan… and talk about, as I alluded to at the beginning of the post, why I believe this issue is bigger than just finding out how much someone makes, as some of the candidates have argued.

Vermont is facing difficult challenges. We are losing jobs and seeing increasing deficits. The state employees we depend on to allow our state to function effectively suddenly feel they are the enemy and under suspicion. If we want businesses to create jobs in Vermont, we need to offer them clear guidelines, benchmarks for progress, and predictability in government operations. The only way we can do that is by changing the culture in Montpelier and making our government more transparent.

While state governments across the country would benefit from greater transparency, the situation in Vermont is particularly dire. The United States Public Interest Research Group report released last month, which cites nearly 70 sources and studies, gives Vermont an “F”. It’s one of numerous sources that grade Vermont poorly in this area. http://www.uspirg.org/home/rep…

The study shows that increased transparency in government can:

• Reduce costs through increased government efficiency and lower waste, including savings in procurement, contracting, and IT management.

• Improve civic trust and democratic engagement through accountability, allowing citizens to immediately evaluate how their tax dollars are being spent and empowering voters to better decide who to vote for in the future.

• Bolster robust economic development through speed, efficiency, and convenience in government services that provide the resources for entrepreneurs and business owners to start, support, and grow businesses as they identify opportunities. Improvement in government services includes reducing the need for physical travel between governmental agencies for business licenses and permits, etc., improving accounting and record keeping through computerization, and easy access to information and forms leading to quicker and more accurate processing.

In order to ensure the trust of our citizens and, more importantly, engage them in helping to find solutions to our growing fiscal, economic and social problems, we need to be as open and transparent in our actions as possible. To keep improving state government and remove barriers between agencies, we must have transparent goals. Vermont needs leadership that sets clear measurements of success and provides an understanding across departments of what success looks like.

In addition to releasing my financial disclosure form yesterday, I released a copy of my “Transparency for the 21st Century” proposal (http://www.mattdunne.com/issues/21st-century-transparency). In it, I lay out several different initiatives I would undertake as Governor to increase transparency in state government.

The initiatives in this proposal represent “best practices” from successful governments and companies. These initiatives are aimed at establishing transparency measures that empower frontline workers, enhance trust, increase efficiency, reduce costs, and improve services. Meeting the needs of Vermonters and ensuring an open and transparent government will be a priority of my administration as we work together to transform the way state government operates and to change the culture in Montpelier.

The Progressive Party has announced a complete slate of statewide candidates for their party’s primary. While the goal seems partially to avoid “squatting” from non-Progressives looking for an easy major party ballot line, there still will likely (although not certainly) be a Progressive on most ballot lines, which will lead to more spoiler debates.

On the one hand, it’s probably the case that the only candidate of sufficient statewide prominence to impact the final vote totals is Party Chair and former Auditor candidate Martha Abbott for Governor. In fact, in a close race, Abbott could easily draw 5% or more, the lion’s share of which would likely otherwise go to a Democratic nominee and create the same troubling dynamic (that IRV, for example, would avoid); a left wing primary election co-existing on the same ballot as a broader statewide general election.

But on the other hand, it means that many Democrats who were losing hope that a credible candidate would emerge from their own party to challenge Auditor Tom Salmon can no longer look to Progressive Martha Abbott to fill that role. In this way, Abbott may be walking away from the Progs’ clearest path towards statewide victory and open acceptance from many liberal Dems.

Also, one is left to wonder at most of these names. Charlotte Dennett is a familiar one, but is clearly not competitive against Sorrell based on recent history. The others are unknown names and represent a continuation of the odd, counterintuitive paradigm among Progressive candidates; the sharp delineation between those who choose to run for statewide office, and those who run for local office. With few exceptions, the high profile Progressive electoral success stories are not the population from which their statewide candidates are drawn. The Zuckermans, Edwards, Pearsons, for example, may occasional flirt with statewide ambitions, but generally they are not the candidates.

So the question for debate is, is it a greater impact on the Progressives credibility to allow a few ballot lines to fall prey to squatters, or to present an official slate of statewide candidates that are virtually unrecognizable and will be unlikely to register much more than negligibly in final tallies?

Also, can we expect to see a stronger push from Progressives at the legislative level, given the badly damaged relationship between many among the liberal advocacy community and the Democratic legislators following a session characterized by many as a failure, or even an outright betrayal (based on the “Challenges for Change” fiasco)?

It’s been a while since the last GMD discussion/debate on the Progressive/Democratic electoral spectrum, so consider this a wide open thread on the whole, broad topic.

(In keeping with the GMD policy of featuring first-person diaries by candidates to statewide office on our front page, here is the latest from Deb Markowitz: – promoted by Sue Prent)

I want to thank all of the Vermonters that signed our petition and put the heat on Brian Dubie. This weekend he pulled his anti-Vermont advertising on the New York Times.  

I think it is important to point out that this is the second time in as many months that he has changed his position on an important economic issue. In March, he reversed his support for the Seal of Quality program, a 30-year old program for branding, marketing and regulating Vermont products after we asked him to reject the governor's decision:  

After meeting Friday with Douglas and Allbee, Dubie changed that, saying he now understands the program is not being eliminated, but instead taking a hiatus while adjustments are made, and he agrees with that…“I’m in total agreement with his plan,” he said. Free Press 3/28/10

Vermont has challenges to jumpstart our economy including making Vermont more affordable for businesses and families. I have worked to help our local officials become better job ambassadors and saved businesses by cutting fees. I'll bring this experience to the governor's office. Lt. Governor Dubie needs to show better decision-making before he uses his campaign advertising to paint Vermont in a bad light, but I appreciate his change of tone.  

A former Vermont National Guard member who served in Kuwait – decorated twice by Gov. Jim Douglas – lost his post when a background check found an 18-year-old misdemeanor that prevents him from being a soldier.

Sam Hemingway has written a lenghty article in today’s Burlington Free Press about a 16-year member of the national guard who has lost his post from a case he thought was was closed back in 1992,

when he paid a $10 fine and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of assaulting his wife during a quarrel when they were newly married.

He was wrong.

Thanks to that long-ago offense, the man recently lost his job of 16 years at the Vermont National Guard, a large part of his military pension and the chance to serve his country in Afghanistan.

Hemingway says the soldier has been trying to get his job back ever since.

To that end, six Guard officers have written letters of commendation for him, and three legislators have lobbied on his behalf. Two judges have sympathized with his plight. Chittenden County State’s Attorney Thomas J. Donovan even tried to get the court to throw out the 18-year-old conviction.

What the man doesn’t have is what he needs most: a pardon from Gov. Jim Douglas.

As I read the lengthy story, I wondered:

– What does it take to get a Governor’s pardon?  – How many pardons occur during a Governor’s tenure?

– Has Governor Douglas given similar pardons?

Some of those questions are answered in the comparative chart below prepared by John James of the Burlington Free Press.

Read the whole story in today’s Burlington Free Press It’s a lot to think about.

What about this soldier passing all previous background checks?

What about his exemplary record?

What about the support of his wife, who was the person who originally filed the complaint the they both thought had been expunged?

What is the contradiction in the fact that this soldier was twice decorated by Governor Douglas, and now cannot even garner a private meeting to plead for his case?

What are your thoughts?

(or how to creep even Stephan King out)

The Gulf of Mexico dead zone is an area of hypoxic (link to USGS definition) (less than 2 ppm dissolved oxygen) waters at the mouth of the Mississippi River. Its area varies in size, but can cover up to 6,000-7,000 square miles. The zone occurs between the inner and mid-continental shelf in the northern Gulf of Mexico, beginning at the Mississippi River delta and extending westward to the upper Texas coast.

(paper posted on site hosted by Carlton College of Minnesota)

The plumes are depleting the oxygen dissolved in the gulf, worrying scientists, who fear that the oxygen level could eventually fall so low as to kill off much of the sea life near the plumes.

(Giant Plumes of Oil Found Forming Under Gulf of Mexico, NY Times, 05/15/10)

Oh, sorry … those plumes referred to above? Below.

Scientists are finding enormous oil plumes in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, including one as large as 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick in spots. The discovery is fresh evidence that the leak from the broken undersea well could be substantially worse than estimates that the government and BP have given.

(Giant Plumes of Oil Found Forming Under Gulf of Mexico)

Oil plumes that are causing new hypoxic circumstances + previous hypoxic zones … doesn’t bode well for much of anything beyond hypoxia.

Some interesting and worth watching scientific conjecture in the NYT article regarding the connection between the deep water applications of toxic oil dispersants and the plumes.

“It appears that the application of the subsea dispersant is actually working,” the article quotes Doug Suttles, BP’s chief operating officer for exploration and production, “The oil in the immediate vicinity of the well and the ships and rigs working in the area is diminished from previous observations.”

Our current (and hopefully temporary) national anthem:

Oh no I can’t see

The oil bright and shiny

For dispersants we use

Keep the mess in the deep blue.

Because I know success when I see it … and when I don’t

(cross-posted from Beyond Vermont State Hospital (VSH) blog, here)

Within the two-year legislative session that recently ended, the State of Vermont once again attempted to make it both easier and quicker to impose its will upon people who come within the mental health system concerning what it perceives and terms as being a necessary form of treatment (here; via ACLU-VT legislative update).

It should also be noted that the context of these efforts were addressing non-emergency settings only and not emergency situations.

In fact the Agency of Human Services (VT AHS) and the Department of Mental Health (VT DMH) tried to sneak it in as part of the Challenges for Change 2 bill (the legislature declined doing so however).

That stated, rather than focus on those efforts and how they played out, I will instead speak to the use of language and what appears to be behind such as well as some of its consequences, relating to the use of the term involuntary within the context of mental health treatment settings.

When it comes to the use of force and violence imposed by the state upon persons in any mental health or behavioral treatment setting (i.e., institutional or community), the jargon usually employed is involuntary treatment as well as involuntary medication.

These uses of the term involuntary makes such actions against individuals much more socially acceptable and also causes many people to further their beliefs that whomever is on the receiving end must be well deserving, oftentimes without any questions or concerns being raised (read: deliberate indifference).

Although it might be true that definitions of the term involuntary include any action done against the will of an individual, not willing or voluntary or, put another way, something done without the informed consent of the individual upon whom an action is taken, it is also true that the term is defined as an action having been without intention or done unintentionally, etc.

The truth of the matter is that when the state inflicts its will upon individual persons in this fashion, it involves outright force and violence as well as degradation inflicted upon the person.

It might not be desirable for someone to be locked up against one’s will for any length of time, however it is even worse to be drugged and otherwise receive treatment (e.g., shock treatment, also referred to as ECT) in such a manner; which can often happen by the use of rubber stamp court appointed guardians that the state recruits for these purposes so they can get their way, if they cannot do so otherwise.

Many of those who have undergone force drugging and treatment compare it to no less than rape.

Not only have I heard people refer to forced drugging as such, but I have also witnessed the obvious and sometimes not so obvious wounds and scars caused to their emotional health and soul.

This makes one wonder why, if it would of course be totally unacceptable among most people within our society to term either sexual molestation or rape as being involuntary touching or involuntary sex, why is it then permissible as well as acceptable — simply due to it being done on behalf of the state — to term forced drugging and forced treatment as being involuntary medication and involuntary treatment?

Such actions taken against citizens by the state should rather be understood as well as termed what they indeed are: i.e., forced drugging and forced treatment.

It should also be noted that none of this is about the use of politically correct language either.

Instead, what this is about is calling things what they truly are, as well as, defending the civil rights of all citizens, including those whom some in society would like be kept out of sight, out of mind (sometimes quite literally, or so it seems).

If you have not already done so, please read related commentary of mine, here (via Beyond VSH blog).

Please note, I am an active member of the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth.



More evidence that the planning process around Exit 20 in St. Albans Town and Swanton is broken.



In today’s St. Albans Messenger, Michelle Monroe reports that the Conservation Law Foundation will be forced to refuse a $25,000. grant from “Clean and Clear” to develop a comprehensive stormwater management plan for the area surrounding Exit 20 of I-89.  The reason: neither the Town of St. Albans nor the Town of Swanton wants their findings to influence public policy. You can’t make this stuff up.  According to the article

The project would have included a geographic information system (GIS) overview of current conditions and an evaluation of methods that could be used to protect and improve water conditions in the area..

In refusing the help of the CLF, Swanton town administrator, Dick Thompson, is quoted as writing:

“We fear that the results of any environmental planning efforts by them , or consultants hired by them would only result in negative connotations and impact to our efforts to promote economic  development in our community.”

To which St. Albans Town manager, Christine Murphy added her concern that

Any plan for the Exit 20 area had the potential to grow ‘regulatory legs’ because of the likelihood that the town will be required to obtain a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit.

It should be mentioned that Christine Murphy has only recently come on-board the St. Albans Town administration;  but Dick Thompson  has served in the capacity of  Swanton town administrator for a number of years.  Mr. Thompson was recorded some years back at a Swanton planning meeting when building caps were under discussion.  Referring to the newly designated growth center at Exit 20, he said something to the effect that ” We want them to know that we don’t care how big they build it here; we just want them to build here!”

Murphy takes issue with the fact that the Conservation Law Foundation didn’t ask the Towns’ permission before applying for the grant.  One of the factors that may have influenced the two Towns to reject the Federally funded planning project is the fact that, last year, the CLF initiated proceedings to challenge a discharge permit that had been issued to the St. Albans City Wastewater Treatment facility.  The CLF challenge asserts that the permit represents a violation of state law with regard to the preservation of prime agricultural soils.

Since large growth centers adjacent to Exit 20 have been designated by both Towns, the area is ripe for the kind of highway-centric sprawl that responsible planning is intended to avoid.  Despite repeated requests by the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth for detailed projections of what full build-out of these growth centers might look like, so far none have been forthcoming.  The CLF project would have gone a long way to provide the kind of information Franklin County needs to plan around this target area of intense growth.

By a remarkable coincidence, St. Albans resident Marie Limoges has a letter to the editor in the same issue of the Messenger:

I am really amazed that I seem to be the only person interested in Jeff Davis’ plans for the rest of his property at Exit 20, especialy since I recntly discovred that the 22 acres the Drive-In Theater is on is up for sale and advertised as good property for retail purposes.

Also, there have been proposals by Swanton to develop their portion of land at exit 20, and isn’t a hotel/motel on the drawing board near exit 20?

I shudder at the amount of noise, pollution, storm water run-off, traffic conjestion, etc., that these projects will create for the area.  Lots of luck to all of us, when and if all this transpires

On Monday afternoon Edna Fairbanks Williams, a giant in Vermont antipoverty advocacy, died in a car crash. Vermont's large media outlets covered the story, including WCAX,  The Rutland Herald, and Vermont Public Radio. 

The irony is that probably not one person in ten who saw the coverage had ever heard her name.

Edna's funeral was yesterday, and it was attended by a throng of her admirers, including young and old, people who came in using wheelchairs and crutches, walkers and canes; as well as lawyers, judges, a Supreme Court justice, Vermont's member of Congress, and current and former state officials, lobbyists, and antipoverty activists. In all, a very unlikely collection of mourners for an impoverished, 77-year-old widow.

I wasn't sure I would have anything to add to the powerful remarks from important people who talked about her influence in Vermont public policy and the Legislature, her commitment to helping people every day of her life, or the way the professionals with their impressive educations would routinely defer to her insight and wisdom, but I found that I did have a few recollections that I'll share here.

I first met Edna Fairbanks Williams in 1983 when I came to Vermont to interview at Vermont Legal Aid. She was the President of Legal Aid's Board, and she had chosen to sit in on the staff attorney interviews. This is not a common choice, but it reflected Edna's view of the importance of Legal Aid to the antipoverty struggle. This began many years of working together on issues that affected the tens of thousands of Vermonters living in poverty.

You may remember that back in the 1980's there was a magazine called Vermont Magazine. One year they did a special issue on the Ten Most Influential Vermonters. It included the usual suspects: The head of National Life; probably one or two of those three-hundred dollar an hour lobbyists for the phone company or the electric company; possibly, although he denies it, John Dooley, who was Madeleine Kunin's chief of staff at the time, known as “The Little Governor”. Among all these powerful people was Edna Fairbanks Williams, recognized for the power of her dedication, commitment to understanding the issues she was working on, and the eloquence of her advocacy that grew out of her personal experience. Vermont Magazine was probably right: at that time, for that year, Edna was probably one of the ten most influential Vermonters. If you look at her body of work, from the years before this issue through all the years that followed, though, there is no question that Edna's influence was greater than any of the other listed Influential Vermonters.

As I have sat listening to the comments of other people I have heard repeated mentions of people attending the annual Legislative Supper put on by VLIAC, the Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council, every winter. On the night of this particular Legislative Supper people talked about how Edna was able to make it to the supper despite a blinding snowstorm. As I sat there listening, though, I thought there must be something wrong. I was there in many of those VLIAC board meetings when the Legislative Supper was being planned, and I know that Edna would never schedule a Legislative Supper without consulting her omnipresent, and in her eyes infallible, Old Farmer's Almanac. I don't what could have happened on this particular year, but clearly on this one occasion something went wrong.

Finally, some of us recall a time several years ago when Edna had a little difficulty with the town. Her house and yard were so full of auto parts, used furniture, tires, dishes, pots and pans, and other discarded items that she had collected to distribute to people in need that the town had decided to force her to clean it up. She got legal help from one of the attorney members of the Legal Aid board that held the town off, but eventually there was a massive cleanup operation organized for one Saturday in the spring. Friends and volunteers from Legal Aid showed up with our boots and work gloves to help get the situation into some kind of order.

It was hard work because there was so much stuff there, but what made it harder was that whatever you picked up, whether it was a broken car part or a spare cooking pot, if Edna saw you with it she wouldn't let you dispose of it. She always knew “a young guy who's learning to be a mechanic who can use that”, or a “young single mother who needs that”. Eventually, one person was assigned to keep Edna distracted so that the rest of us could get on with the work of cleaning the place out.

The thing was, that the way Edna went through life, whenever any object, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, came into her view or into her hand, Edna couldn't help thinking of how it could be put to use helping someone else.

On this occasion of Edna's death, we would all do well to consider this example. If this was how Edna saw the world, how can any of the rest of us justify doing any less? 

(In keeping with our policy of promoting diaries by candidates for statewide office to the front page, here is the latest from Deb Markowitz: – promoted by GMD)

I just sent a video message to supporters and wanted to make sure the GMD crowd had it as well. It is an update to my post earlier in the week.

Help me tell Brian Dubie to stop the ad now. Sign our online petition below.

( – promoted by GMD)

G. Norman of Vermont Tigger starts this short post with:

According to this survey of business people in the state, taxes are

   … the number one factor that could cause companies to leave Vermont.

The ‘this survey’ Norman is referencing being one discussed at VermontBiz.com in an article titled Survey: Best and worst of doing business in Vermont (the link came from Norman’s post as the reference for the quote in italics above).

Too bad ol’ G didn’t bother reading the article.

Oh sure, the quote about “the number one factor” is in the article … first sentence as a matter of fact, and it appears that is where our Vermont Tigger commentator stopped reading.

I say this because the very next sentence reads

Conversely, there was consensus among survey respondents that Vermont’s quality of life acts as a powerful incentive for businesses to settle and stay here.

(ibid)

According the Arno Group, their survey has no statistical validity, but let us pretend a bit just to give the Tiggers their due:

Less than half the respondents ranked the “pain” they feel from labor costs as a three or higher on a scale of seven. Energy costs may also not be a source of acute pain for many Vermont companies, the survey suggests.

Whatever the relative tax burden borne by Vermont businesses, most of those taking part in the Arno Group survey said they would not consider leaving the state because of the issue of taxes.

Arno Group Partner David Rocchio said, “The survey suggests to me businesses are in Vermont because of the state’s culture and societal structure and landscape.

**Sigh** too bad Norman didn’t get past that first sentence. The “I hate Vermont” duo of Dubie/Douglas won’t appreciate the bulk of this piece either.

Anyway the article is an interesting read even if based upon a survey that is more speculation than representative self selecting rather than random.