( – promoted by odum)

VSEA members were relieved to hear that the number of state employee layoffs this round were far fewer than projected – about 25 in total. However, we couldn’t help wondering why 25 people had to lose their jobs at all, particularly given that the Union offered $7.4 million to avoid this outcome.

Not only were these layoffs needless, but by rejecting VSEA’s offer of furloughs and unpaid holidays, the Douglas Administration cost taxpayers almost $5 million!

Representative Mark Larson was quick to point this out to Finance Commissioner Jim Reardon when he testified at the Legislative Joint Fiscal Committee on Tuesday:

Rep. Mark Larson, D-Burlington, reacted to Reardon’s report with sharp criticism. He said the state would be in a better position to cope with the looming budget pressures if the administration had accepted an offer from the Vermont State Employees Association that all employees take off four days without pay and give up three paid holidays.

Larson argued that taking the union’s offer would have avoided layoffs and left for the next budget crisis all the options the administration used — eliminating vacancies, taking savings from the health insurance program and asking departments to absorb more of the increase in the cost of personnel.

“Refusing to accept the deal that was put on the table has put us in a weaker place,” Larson said.

BFP – 10/29/09/

Here’s the math:

Laying off 25 state workers = approximately $1 million + using health plan surplus ($1.7 million) = $2.7 million

Accepting VSEA proposal = $7.4 million

$7.4 million in exchange for saving 25 positions seems like a pretty good deal for the State! There was never a provision in VSEA’s proposal that precluded the Administration from eliminating the 133 vacant positions they used to meet their target. How does this make sense fiscally or even politically? Why would you pass up an offer that saves both jobs and money?  

When the Administration began eliminating federally funded positions last year, I thought they had lost their minds. I mean, isn’t sending money back to DC a “reverse stimulus package?”

The Governor’s latest actions continue to defy logic. How do you bargain with someone who would cut his entire workforce just to spite you?

“State’s attorney finds no individual at fault.”  That was the headline in today’s St. Albans Messenger.

It’s  a sad little story, that of 23-year old Ashley Ellis who went to jail for “careless and negligent operation of a motor vehicle” and died two days later when she herself was carelessly and negligently denied medication for a known health condition; and apparently no one is to blame, at least not in the narrow legal sense.  What that says about the way we deal with sick and troubled people in this country speaks volumes.  There are, we are told, a higher percentage of people in jail in this country than in any other country on the globe, with an average of 701 people out of every 10,000 individuals, currently imprisoned.  The lion’s share of these incarcerations apparently represent drug-related crimes of possession and petty trafficking; people who might be better and more economically dealt with through effective intervention and rehabilitation programs.  But we have allowed a selective puritanism and Byzantine sense of justice to morph into the dog-wagging tail that is our twenty-first century penal system.  Inevitably, jailing people has become big business, too;  really, REALLY  big business with contractors, subcontractors and a netherworld economy  as much dependent on a steady stream of “customers” as IBM or AT&T.  

I don’t know any of the details about Ashley Ellis’ short life of “crime.”  This little girl probably should have been deprived of her driver’s license long ago, both for her own and other people’s safety.  She certainly needed a lot more intervention than just potassium tablets could provide; but that was the very least that the Northwest State Correctional Facility health service contractors should have done for her; and for neglecting that responsibility, they most certainly should be held accountable.

In light of recent efforts on the federal level to have the privilege of “person-hood” bestowed upon corporations, I found  advocate Barry Kade’s comment that he doesn’t “know how you would go about charging a corporation with criminal negligence” to be food for thought.  The parties seeking to assert person-hood for corporations are doing so in order to secure first amendment rights for corporations so that they might have broader  influence on elections. Even the ACLU is reluctantly admitting that this argument may have some merit.  Wouldn’t it be ironic if corporations won person-hood  only to be exposed to an endless barrage of criminal negligence cases on behalf of victims like Ashley Ellis whose lonely health struggle just got lost in the disinterested shuffle of corporate efficiencies?

In August of 2009 the Douglas administration launched its own aggressive sounding initiative dubbed “Tiger Teams”.The “Teams” were comprised of about 35 high-level executive branch officials.The bureaucratic tigers were charged with combing state agencies in a search for  government savings.

Now,months later Finance Commissioner Reardon has received no actual reports from the teams .Maybe Governor Douglas will find time to look into the “Tiger Teams” lack of success at finding wasteful spending after his overseas travel is completed.

Lawmakers on the Joint Fiscal Committee had expected some information about potential savings that “Tiger Teams” might have identified. The Douglas administration said it would create teams to scour state government for ways to save money given that big deficits are projected next year even if tax revenues stabilize.

“I have yet to receive the actual reports,” Reardon said.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

Yesterday was an odd day on the misappropriation of funds scandal relating to Burlington Telecom.

In the morning that I posted what I thought was a more-or-less common sense and low-impact diary on the matter, two other pieces were appearing in the traditional media: the latest from the Freeps and a rather bizarre offering from Shay Totten.

Totten may not have initially broken this story, but his work – and his narrative – have largely fueled it. In his latest “Fair Game” piece, though, he turns his narrative completely on its head without explanation. What had been a case of rulebreaking and hubris from the Mayor's office, enabled by an ineffectual City Council (making for a multipartisan – Dems, Repubs, Progs and Indys – scandal), is now… that's right… all a dirty Democrat plot. A mountain made of a molehill to make political hay – all part of a never-ending scheme to take the Mayor's office.

It's… weird. For example, Totten refers to an apology offered by the heretofore unapologetic Jonathan Leopold:

Leopold, for his part, has apologized for not telling the council sooner.

Oh? Totten's link leads to his previous column that contains no apology from Leopold whatsoever. In fact, it includes the Leopold quote “it was me, and I’m not ashamed of it.” This is an apology? It is followed by the vague, but equally unrepentant “In hindsight, you can always find things you could have done differently, but this was prudent.” As one reader told me yesterday, the link was as relevant to a supposed Leopold apology as if it had been a link to ebay.

And City Councilors certainly didn't hear an apology. This is from an email sent to councilors and City Hall from Independent City Councilor Karen Paul on Tuesday:

There is one other thing that is needed. When I make a mistake, I own up to it and do my utmost to make things right. This guiding principle applies in my personal and professional as well as my political life.

I don’t think an apology makes us look weak; rather, I think it makes us look human and shows humility. I think we are a forgiving community and we understand even when our elected officials err but our citizenry does not forgive or have trust in officials who don’t express remorse.

To stand strong to one’s convictions despite knowing one violated a Certificate of Public Good does appear to be rather cavalier. I would encourage you to reflect on these thoughts and be sure you don’t feel you owe the citizens of Burlington an apology.

So what flipped Totten so dramatically? Who knows. He has been clearly under extraordinary pressure since he began reporting this story. Take this exchange from Facebook (on the flip):

Liz Curry

there'sno bluner – listen to the Mark Johnson interview – the only gap is theDPS staff did not require the City to focus on the 60-day limit untilthey resolved Condition 17 of the CPG. Paying bills for BED, BT, theAirport has been common practice – it's not a loan- it kept BT going.Get the facts before scapegoating public officials who are acting onself interest.

Sat at 9:34pm

 

 [snip]

 

Shay Totten

Infact, it is a loan as it has to be repaid with interest. It may becommon practice, and it may be what was needed to keep BT alive (which,BTW, I think is a great service and hope these actions don't sink it).The issue is that it wasn't done openly or with approval from thecouncil or Board of Finance – which was needed as it alters the … Read Morefundamental approach to BT's operations.

Besides,councilors weren't briefed on the Condition 60 violation until May, sixmonths after the city says it first realized it was in violation. Thatsaid, the same councilors blustering now have known about this sinceMay and are as complicit as it gets.

Remember, too, Joe McNeilpointed out this week that he advised the city to fess up last Novemberto the PSB about its Condition 60 violation and they didn't take hisadvice. Why willfully ignore counsel like that?

Yesterday at 11:27am

 

Liz Curry

Oh really? And you've checked your facts with the people directly involved and confirmed statements made?

Yesterday at 1:24pm

 

Shay Totten

No, as a journalist I just make shit up. Puhleez.

Yesterday at 1:31pm

 

 [snip]

 

Liz Curry

“thereis no explicit OK on record from the board of finance or the citycouncil to loan the money, which is what irks many councilors and thepublic” (Fair Game, Wed. Oct. 21). The fact is, there is no legal basisor reason for getting an “OK” from any governing body in the City. Thispractice is used quite often by any and all administrations to … Read Morepaythe bills for BED, the Schools, and yes, BT. In fact, the bills beingpaid out of the general fund for BED's costs at the time were muchhigher than bills being paid for BT. It is not a “loan.” A loan is alegal document with a promissory note. And in fact, more people knewabout this than you can mention on any given day, which is what makesthis a political witchhunt that suits the media fine.

Yesterday at 9:52pm 

Shay Totten
GeezLiz, why bother with electing a city council if an administrationdoesn't need an approval from “any governing body in the City.” Or, whyeven bother with elections? That'd be even simpler — save money, timeand all that messy democracy stuff.
In fact, there is astructure in place for the administration to report the financial andoperational activities: The Board of Finance, at a minimum, if not theentire city council who has to approve its budget, its filings with thePSB, etc.
So why is it that none of the people who “knew moreabout it than you can mention it on a given day” were not on thecouncil or the board of finance?… Read More
Also,the use of the cash pool – in every other instance you've noted andJonathan Leopold has noted — pertains situations where outsidefinancing was already secured and had not yet released funds to BED orsome other city entity. In other words, it wasn't an open-endedcommitment with no guaranteed end in sight.
It may have beenthe right move, the best move and the cheapest move to keep BT alive.Doesn't justify the taking action without consent.
I've said itbefore, and I'll say it again: I think BT is a great service superiorto Comcast in a multitude of ways. And, I want to see it succeed as I'mall for the public option in health care and in telecommunications.But, that's not the issue.
It may be a political witch hunt forsome, but for me it's a very simple narrative about the lack oftransparency in government when the public's money is involved. Period.

Thanks for posting – getting me all warmed up to write this week's column!

Totten is clearly not in a fun place for doing his job on all this. Curry is of course a longtime lefty usual suspect in Chittenden County and does a lot of great work.

In any case, the Totten flip comes on the heels of a strategy meeting on the matter that was held Sunday night that reportedly included Curry, as well as John Franco, former Councilor Jane Knodell, Mayor Bob Kiss, Dean Corren, Councilors Marrisa Caldwell and Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, Sandy Baird and Representative Dave Zuckerman (who is already promoting Totten's new perspective).

What was the strategy settled on? Email from the State Party Chair to the Progressive listserv this week suggests the us-versus-them approach has been embraced at the highest levels:

Martha Abbott marthavt at sover.net

Wed Oct 28 12:27:55 CDT 2009

Hey Folks–Bob's live show is on Ch. 17 today. Please call in with support:5:25 till 5:55862-3966

I'm sure there will be many calls from the opposition.

Are Independents and even Progressives who don't like this situation now simply the “opposition?”

It didn't look like it was going to happen initially, considering the multiparty makeup of the City Council and the commensurate multiparty nature of the screwup, but a decision has clearly been collectively been made by key Burlington Progressives to bunker down with Mayor Kiss and company regardless of the actual merits of the situation, in the process making this a partisan thing.

And that sucks. “My Party right or wrong” is an awful political mantra. In fact, reaction against that mantra within the Democratic Party is largely what the blogosphere is founded on. It's no coincidence that the Democratic Party has both creeped towards the left and begun amassing more political victories since the blogs started challenging its leaders and orthodoxy – especially when they screw up.

By digging in like this, the Progressives are decidedly going against the historical flow, and it does no one any good.

Step back from the brink, folks. This path leads you – and the city – into a world of needless hurt… especially since there may well be some smoking gun documents on the matter yet to surface (more on that soon).

With Lieberman Vowing to Join GOP Filibuster to Block the Public Option in Open Defiance of Public Opinion — and House Democrats Vowing They Won’t Pass Health-Care Reform Bill Without It — Senate Democrats Have No Choice But to Invoke the So-Called ‘Nuclear Option’ and Force a Vote on the Bill by a Simple Majority

Senate Democrats should have known that Democrat-turned-independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut — photographed above with Republican presidential nominee John McCain (left) on the campaign trail last year — could not always be counted on to support them on important domestic legislation. Now that Lieberman has declared that he will join a Republican filibuster against a government-run health-insurance plan to compete with private insurers — robbing Democrats of a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority — Senate Democrats have no choice now but to invoke a parliamentary maneuver known as the “nuclear option”  — which Republicans threatened to use in 2005 to stop Democratic filibusters against then-President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees — to force a vote on the bill by a simple majority. (Photo: Matt Rourke/Associated Press)

(Posted 5:00 a.m. EDT Thursday, October 29, 2009)

===============================

A ‘SKEETER BITES REPORT EDITORIAL

===============================

If Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) proved anything, he showed Senate Democrats on Tuesday that he cannot be trusted.

The Democrat-turned-independent infuriated many of his former fellow Democrats last year when he endorsed and campaigned openly for Republican presidential nominee John McCain. And he remains a sharp critic of President Obama’s foreign policy — particularly on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now he’s joined the Republicans in an expected filibuster against the health-care reform bill in an effort to block the so-called public option, a government-run health-insurance plan that would compete directly with private insurers.

That Lieberman is openly defying public opinion, in which a solid majority of Americans support a public option, is beside the point. By siding with the GOP in their implacable opposition to a public option, Lieberman has robbed the Democrats of the filibuster-proof 60-vote majority they need to pass the bill.

NO MATTER WHAT, HEALTH-CARE REFORM MUST PASS — OR ELSE

On any other issue, the Democrats would bow to political reality and concede defeat. But in the case of health-care reform, defeat is not an acceptable option. The demand for health-care reform by the American public is too overwhelming to be denied.

Too many Americans are literally going broke because they cannot afford the skyrocketing cost of health care.

A growing number of businesses — both large and small — are being forced to stop offering health-care plans to their employees because they can no longer afford the soaring cost, either.

That threatens to prolong the recession for months — even years — by slamming the door on job creation. Consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of the U.S. economy, cannot and will not grow back to its pre-recession levels as long as 15 to 20 million Americans remain out of work and another five to ten million fear losing their jobs.

And for Americans in potentially life-threatening situations, the increasing unaffordability of health care can literally be a matter of life or death.

The bottom line is that health-care reform must pass — and it must pass this year — or else.

Obama has staked his presidency on it. Many House Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have vowed that they won’t allow any health-care reform measure without a public option to reach the president’s desk — even though the most aggressive of the three public-option plans most favored by liberals lacks the necessary 218 votes to pass.

Under these circumstances, therefore, Senate Democrats no longer have any choice but to do something that up to now they have been loathe to do — something that the Republicans, when they controlled the Senate, threatened to impose in 2005.

That something is the so-called “nuclear option” — a rarely-used parliamentary maneuver whereby the majority votes to change Senate rules and force a vote on a measure by a simple majority.

‘NUCLEAR OPTION’ BASED ON 1957 NIXON OPINION WHILE VEEP

The “nuclear option” — so named by then-Senator Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) in 2005 — is based on a 1957 advisory opinion by then-Vice President Richard Nixon, serving in his capacity as president of the Senate, that no Senate may constitutionally enact a rule that deprives a future Senate of the right to approve its own rules by the vote of a simple majority.

The Constitution specifies that, except for the ratification of treaties and constitutional amendments and the override of presidential vetoes of legislation — in which case, a two-thirds majority is required — the Senate is free to establish its own rules for parliamentary procedure.  

Although legally nonbinding, Nixon’s opinion has been treated by the Senate ever since as a definitive precedent.

Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1892, in United States v. Ballin, that both houses of Congress are parliamentary bodies, implying that they may make procedural rules by a simple majority vote.

HOW THE ‘NUCLEAR OPTION’ WORKS

The “nuclear option” is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this.

The presiding officer of the Senate — usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore — makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator’s point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent.

A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, “Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?” This is referred to as “appealing from the Chair.” An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue.

If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer’s ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration.

GOP THREATENED TO ‘GO NUCLEAR’ TO HALT FILIBUSTERS OF BUSH’S JUDICIAL NOMINEES

The one danger with invoking the “nuclear option” is the fact that it is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the “nuclear option” is a change in the rules of the Senate that would effectively bar future filibusters.

It was fear of the “nuclear option” doing away with filibusters altogether that prompted fourteen moderate senators — seven from each party — to join forces in 2005 to block an attempt by then-majority Republicans to invoke the “nuclear option” to force confirmation votes on ten judicial nominations made by then-President George W. Bush who were blocked by filibusters by minority Democrats.

Democrats blocked the confirmation of the ten on the grounds that they were too “out of the mainstream” — in other words,  too far right-wing — for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. At the beginning of his second term, Bush resubmitted seven of the 10 names.

Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada), then the Senate minority leader, vowed to fight their confirmation. Senator Bill Frist (R-Tennessee), then the majority leader,  threatened to use the “nuclear option” to get the nominees confirmed.

The fourteen centrist senators — who came to be known as the “Gang of 14” — forged an agreement whereby the seven Democrats among them would no longer vote along with their party on filibustering judicial nominees (except in “extraordinary circumstances”), and in turn the seven Republicans among them would break with the Republican leadership on voting for the “nuclear option.”

The agreement by the “Gang of 14” robbed both parties of their leverage and forced them to back down. As a result, five of the filibustered Bush nominees were confirmed. The other five withdrew after it became clear that their nominations would not be voted on.

FAILURE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE — HEALTH-CARE REFORM WITH PUBLIC OPTION MUST PASS

For Democrats, failure to pass a health-care reform bill with a public option is simply not acceptable. A solid 57 percent majority of Americans supports it, according to a recent Washington Post/ABC News Poll, with senior citizens and independent voters — two important voting blocs whom Democrats cannot afford to alienate — favor a public option most strongly.

For Republicans, stopping a health-care reform bill — with or without a public option — is not acceptable, either. Nearly two-thirds of Americans strongly disapprove of the GOP’s performance in the health-care debate, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll, with nearly four times as many Americans likely to blame Republicans than to blame Democrats if health-care reform fails to pass.

With Lieberman’s defection to the GOP on the public option, Senate Democrats have no choice: They must “go nuclear” and force a simple-majority vote. With the “Gang of 14” — its ranks reduced to 11 since 2006 — unlikely to intervene, the only way to stop the “nuclear option” is with a quorum call requiring 51 senators to be present. With only 4o senators, the Republicans cannot muster the 51 absent senators required to stop business.

Americans cannot wait another generation for health-care reform. It must pass, with a public option, this year — or else there will be hell to pay in next year’s midterm elections.

Sincerely,

Skeeter Sanders

Editor & Publisher

The ‘Skeeter Bites Report

Copyright 2009, Skeeter Sanders. All rights reserved.

(NOTE: It should be mentioned that getting the hate crimes bill signed has been an 11-year effort in which Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy has worked closely with the late Senator Edward Kennedy.  Leahy assumed chief sponsorship of the bill when Senator Kennedy became ill. –odum)

Doug Hoffer is one man who does not suffer from “the progressive economic inferiority complex”. His knowledge of economic policy is extensive and he is not afraid to openly challenge the economic theories of the right which often get peddled as “fact.” His recent debunking of the Chamber of Commerce’s “Recommendations for Government Sustainability and Effectiveness” was a true gem.  His ability to take his policy report and share it with a larger audience through his blog posting is a model that I’d like to see more professional policy people emulate.

He also is quite effective at critiquing government programs that purport to stimulate economic growth but in actuality function as giveaway programs to well-connected business interests. Note how he frames the discussion of VEPC’s tax break program in terms of fiscal discipline and getting a good return on our investment as taxpayers.

Many of us on the left often find ourselves mystified by right-wing claims of an anti-business bias in government policy.  But at times the best we can do as a rebuttal is something like “What do you mean? Business interests drive government policy.” Doug’s work gives substance to that instinct and demonstrates the necessity of engaging economic policy debates with the complexity they deserve.  

Aside from GMD, you can also find his work at The Prog blog, High Road Vermont, The Public Assets Institute, and The Peace and Justice Center.

If the Burlington City Council and the Mayor’s office are any metric, the Progressives are indeed coming in to their own as a Major Political Party by engaging in the same sort of bunker mentality politics that the Republicans and Democrats engage in when they get caught screwing up. There have thusfar been no “mistakes were made” moments over the financial scandal rocking the Queen City, as the Council’s Progressives along with city hall seem to be stuck spinning their wheels on the first stage of grief.

(Note: If you just got back from the Negative Zone, Burlington Chief Administrative Officer Jonathan Leopold  cut a $17 million loan from the City’s general funds to Burlington Telecom (the city-run telecom entity) without seeking approval from the Board of Finance or City Council. As a result, BT is now violating its “certificate of public good” issued by the state by not repaying the loan within 60 days – as well as by not expanding its network as promised).

While the revelation that Prog politicians are every bit as human as Dems and Repubs may not be worth mentioning – the potential consequences of continued denial are. The line from Kiss and company has not simply been to avoid the subject of the actual breach of ethics and the terms of BT’s operating certificate entirely, but to try and change that subject. Here’s an example of the rhetoric that has been coming from Kiss and the Council Progressives of late (emphasis added):

“I don’t think we’ve lost the public’s trust, but we are at a critical juncture,” said Councilor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak (P-Ward 2). “We need to remind people what an asset Burlington Telecom is to the community.“

The Council Progressives and the Mayor have seemed to be on the same page – and that page is to make this scandal all about Burlington Telecom itself rather than a lack of transparency, a breach of public trust, and rule (law?) breaking. Presumablely they’re banking on the notion that a referundum on BT will go their way, so a deflection of the topic is in their favor.

But they’re wrong.

This scandal is a big, big deal that’s not going to drift away, and there will come a point that some of their opponents will recognize the opportunity and gladly oblige these Progs by helping to make the conversation about BT. Why? Because if the Progs are successful in linking the two conversations, the results could be devastating for the fledgling, publicly-run information infrastructure experiment. It could bring it all down.

The rational thing to do at this point is to show some humility. In this case, an overabundance of pride could well go before a very big fall.

One of the bad raps on the Progressives collectively has been the idea that they are all about – and only about – building their Party. That nothing else really matters to them. An insistence on a strategy to avoid responsibility for an ethical breach at the expense of one of their finest legacies will go a long way towards cementing that bad rap.

Let’s be clear; I’m not concern trolling. I’m not a member of the Progressive Party and likely never will be – but as a little ‘p’ progressive, I have a stake in Burlington Telecom. I want to see it succeed. And using it as a stalking horse in a political scandal is not in its best interest. I also know that there will be some Progressive politicians who will have no problem with continuing such a strategy, even if it looks to drag down BT.

But I also have faith in some of those folks to be smart and do the right thing. GMD readers will not only recognize the Council Progressives’ paid staffer, Doug Hoffer, but will likely join in my confidence in him to be one of those smart folks based on the quality of his contributions to this community. I genuinely have faith that Hoffer, and others like him who are in the midst of the storm, will ultimately see the bigger picture and keep Burlington Telecom from being sacrificed on the altar of political cover (or at least, that he will have some appreciation for the growing concerns on the matter).

The secretly drafted all terrain vehicle give-a-way of state land is a product of the Douglas administration.  To be fair to ANR, a besieged and imperfect agency just like all the rest, this problem is being forced on them and ANR is being forced to dump it on us.  

While Vermonters are hearing vaffanculo loud and clear, the message is coming from Jim Douglas’s posse and not the ANR bureaucracy.  From the beginning, this has been a political decision  shepherded by Jim Douglas’s personally selected Agency of Natural Resources Secretary Jonathan Wood. There has been no policy consideration in normal sense of the process as the Douglas administration hides behind ANR’s skirt while pulling Jonathan Wood’s strings.

Regardless of how you feel about the proposed new State land give-a-way for motorized vehicles, understand how we came to this point. The people at ANR did not spend the winter drafting these rules and waiting for the legislature to adjourn before pulling the trigger this controversy. These proposed rules were quietly drafted within a tight circle of people who had the Governor’s knowing, direct & express blessing to pull this stunt. The Governor’s team also – and deliberately – waited until just a few clicks of the lights AFTER the General Assembly adjourned in May before it announced this turkey publicly. The secrecy and timing was no accident, and it was not how a state agency works with interested parties in developing a rule prior to proposing it. The ATV rulemaking process continues to be 99% calculated politics and barely 1% off-the-cuff agency policy deliberation and rulemaking.  The process has been, and is, a joke.  

We have witnessed nothing but window dressing. Purported acts of procedural rulemaking process have covered for the failure of the Douglas administration to engage in actual policy. The ATV rules are nothing more than politically divisive acts, and the proposed new ATV rules represent an intentional failure to perform the responsibilities of government. The rulemaking process was outside of the public’s eye and done without the legislature’s knowledge or the knowledge of anyone who may have had an interest other than the crony constituency that is receiving the hand-out. It amounts to another dereliction of duty by the Republicans who have been skating around Montpelier playing office for the past seven years while letting corporations, cronies and incompetents bleed the state of economic opportunities for sustained and healthy growth.

The ATV rules were proposed with Jim Douglas’s OK, they were revised and continued on his OK, and they will go forward on his OK as part of a Republican effort of division politics.  This is not about ANR, this is manipulation coming from and controlled by the Governor’s office by a politically divisive clique that, among them, could not find first gear on an ATV with a hand clutch up their ass.

(cross-posted from Montpelier Matters blog, here)

The Montpelier water budget overpayment mess as well as the lack of much earlier full and open public disclosure by political leaders smells rather fishy. However it is also too bad that fish as a species end up getting such a stinky rap due to what is actually the stench of Vermont politics at among its worse[worst], particularly at the local level.

Although it is most likely that citizens would have been angry with city officials concerning the initial error(s) that led to as well as followed the overpayment and the matter not being found for two years or so after the original error had been made, if it was properly disclosed to the public as well as pursued differently than was the case and, if political ambitions had not been a potential factor as it would appear it could have been, people would have eventually understood and forgiven those involved at the city level.

Except for merely more of the same old tired empty promises to do better next time around and that are not of a good enough standard, it is the apparent lack of trust, honesty and transparency when as well as how it mattered most, repeated breaches of which not easily forgotten or forgiven — especially when not fully admitted and truly owned up to, which appear to be irking certain concerned citizens and voters the most.

Thus, as a concerned resident of the city of Montpelier, it is my opinion that Mayor Mary Hooper as well as each and every city councilor who at any point supported nondisclosure of this matter to the public should resign asap or otherwise be voted out of office when their next term comes up for re-election.

Morgan W. Brown

Montpelier

fyi:

Vermont Public Radio (VPR) Vermont Edition show for Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at Noon and 7:00 PM regarding Government Transparency, here.