(Lotsa numbers for you stat fiends out there. Nice. – promoted by JDRyan)

Cross-posted from Integral Psychosis

Burlington just re-elected Progressive Party mayor Bob Kiss (yes, in Vermont we have a third major Party, for those of you who aren’t from here- they’ve pretty much been in control of Burlington since 1981 and since then the city has won numerous “Most Livable  City”, “Greenest City”, “Healthiest City” (etc, etc) awards, so say what you will, they get results- nationally recognized results).  Congrats certainly to the people up there; “Silent Bob” would certainly have been my choice if I were voting there.

Most impressively, Burlington’s mayoral race was conducted using Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) (also known as preferential voting) as has been their practice since 2006.  So, how’d the system do?  Was the election fair?  Did the candidate with the most support win?

With numbers being supplied by the Burlington Free Press (OK, I know, I shouldn’t consider them a reliable source for anything but fire-starter, but they’ve got the most thorough unofficial numbers I’ve found yet)- we learn that in the third round of IRV Kiss received 4,313 (51.5%) first place votes to Republican Kurt Wright’s 4,061 (48.5).  Vermont law requires 50% + 1 (a majority) to win.  In the initial vote tallies, Wright had 2,951 first place votes to Kiss’ 2,585, Andy Montroll’s (D) 1,497, Dan Smith’s (I) 1,306 and James Simpson’s (Green Party) 35.  That brakes down roughly to 35.2%, 30.8%, 17.8%, 15.6%, .004% respectively.  True, Wright “won” the first round by having the most first place votes, but because by law “winning” the election means having 50%+1 of the people prefer you, it’s clear that no one is the winner, yet.  So Smith and Simpson were eliminated and the votes for them were re-distributed so that in the second round of calculations Montroll did the best by picking up 491 votes from Smith and Simpson supporters (for a total of 1,988 or 23.7%), Kiss gained 396 votes (2,981 total now for 35.6%), Wright gained 343 votes (3,294 or 39.3%).  At this point Wright is still “winning” but has not won, not by a long shot.  So then Montroll’s votes get re-distributed (looking at the number two choice from those ballots that had listed him as number one and looking at the third choice from those ballots that had chosen his number two) (and looking further down the ballot for anyone who chose someone who at this point had already been eliminated).  So in the decisive third round of vote tallies, Kiss picked up 1,332 votes and Wright grabbed 767- respectively totaling 4,313 (51.5%) to 4,061 (48.5%).  For the first time a candidate has over 50% of the votes and is declared winner: congrats, Mr Mayor!

Immediately, Kurt Wright and the right wing mainstream media have picked-up on the bullshit line that IRV has somehow failed the voters because Wright “won” initially but lost as a result of the system’s workings.  Lets be clear and spell it out for Wright, WCAX TV, the Burlington Free Press, and any other’s who want to try this fuzzy line of reasoning: by law (rightfully) a candidate must have over 50% of the vote to “win”.  Obviously with three “left” candidates (Progressive Kiss, Democrat Montroll and Green Simpson) and two “right” candidates (Republican Wright and independent Smith- who I recognize would take exception to being considered “right” but whatever, it’s superfluous to my argument here) (and just not true anyway) the left’s vote was spread thinner and the right  centralized their first-place votes.  In a mere plurality voting system (i.e., who ever has the most first-place votes wins) this would certainly have given Wright the victory.  But this is exactly why IRV is so good, and so important, because this whole exercise demonstrates that if that had been the case- if Wright were elected with that initial 35.2% vote, the new Mayor of Burlington would be someone supported by 48.5% of the people- and not supported by 51.5% of the people.  48.5% to 51.5% is not a democratic victory by any definition.

So Wright and WGOP, er, WCAX can bitch and moan all they want- claiming to be the “winner” with less than 50%+1 of the vote is akin to saying you prefer the winter over the summer because you prefer warm weather.  IRV worked perfectly in service of democracy and the will of the voters.  Now comes the task of getting the rest of our State’s elections to function fairly as well.

Jim Douglas, whose Republican slash-and-burn-the-poor approach to every budget issue is an unfortunate reality in Vermont, has managed to force the state to forgo $36 million in Medicaid stimulus funds from the federal government.

Why? Because he insisted last spring that the poor, whose healthcare costs are covered (to the extent that they are covered) should pay more in premiums. Here’s the story, as reported by Nancy Remsen for the Burlington Free Press last weekend (and, btw, I looked for a similar story in the Rutland Herald/Times-Argus and did not find it):

Vermont Returns $36 Million

MONTPELIER – The state learned late this week it must return a $36 million federal stimulus check because the state – for now – is ineligible for this supplemental Medicaid money.

The entire allocation the state has been expecting for this program – $265 million – will be withheld unless the state rolls back a premium increase that took effect last summer.

Federal stimulus dollars come with strings, and the one that tripped up Vermont this week is a prohibition on premium increases in subsidized health care programs retroactive to July 1, 2008.

The Legislature and Douglas administration agreed last year to increase some premiums paid by Vermonters receiving subsidized health care. It was a way to help close a hole in the budget that developed because tax revenues declined.

The premium increase was to start July 1, which is the first day of the new fiscal year. Actual implementation took place July 3, said Finance Commissioner Jim Reardon.

That mere two-day delay has created a problem in the state’s eligibility for federal stimulus dollars. If the change had occurred as scheduled, the state could have kept the check.

“What it means is we are going to return the check we received,” Reardon.

“What we need to do is roll back the premiums” to the pre-July level, Reardon added. “It is a pretty easy fix.”

The Legislature would have to authorize the rollback. House and Senate leaders said Friday they were agreeable.

The premium repeal provisions will be added to the budget adjustment bill, which is scheduled for final action after lawmakers return March 17.

We can’t afford this governor. Let’s move the primary, so more candidates have the time and resources to make their cases to the voting public.

I’m seeing reports that Bob Kiss (P) won re-election as Burlington’s mayor, in the third round of the IRV (4,313 votes) over Kurt Wright (R- 4061).  Good choice Burlington.  

I’ve also heard that… no, I haven’t heard anything else.  Throw-down your Town Meeting Day results bellow…

I just got back from Montpelier City Hall.

In Montpelier there were no contested elections, and everybody on the printed ballot won election.

 We had many budget items. The town and school budgets passed handily. Every other item requesting an appropriation for a social service agency passed, except for a new item for the Vermont Youth Symphony, passed. The Youth Symphony item failed by only twenty votes, 898-878. Who says your voted doesn't count?

In addition, the initiative for an advisory vote to close Vermont Yankee when its license expires was adopted by the voters of Montpelier.

In Burlington, Shay Totten is reporting that Bob Kiss has won reelection in the third round of IRV.

Any news to post from your town?

As many GMD readers are aware, I have submitted a formal request for a state audit of the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation.  This request was cc'd to the members of the Senate Finance Committee and the Treasurer's Office.  

Since I have stated my concerns about VSAC's current financial status both here on GMD as well as Vermont Tiger (it's a non-partisan issue), I will offer the Treasurer's response below the fold without comment.

For those who may not have read the VSAC series, here are the links.

VSAC:  Burning Cash Fast

VSAC's $50 million bailout request

An Immoral Obligation

Request for Audit

Obama's Direct Lending Program

Testimony before the Senate Finance Committee 

 
The official response from the Treasurer's Office is just below the fold.

Governor Douglas is playing footloose with the laws of Vermont. This paragraph from the Governor’s Executive Code of Ethics, dated September 20, 2003, has led to corruption of state and municipal quasi-judicial boards.

“WHEREAS, it is also essential to the proper operation of government that those best qualified not be discouraged from serving as public officers by requiring them to relinquish totally the opportunity to further their own interests, at least where such interests do not create irreconcilable conflicts with their official responsibilities…”

It is contrary to proper operation of Vermont government that public officers be allowed to further their own interests while serving as representatives of the people. It is wrong to infer that businessmen can pursue their own interests while receiving state per diem compensation or wages while pursuing their own interests. These activities are forbidden. Vermont statutes provide no consideration for the furthering of personal interests when acting as a representative of the public. The Governor is not empowered to make such activity legal.

Neither Title 24 of the Vermont Statutes nor the Vermont Judicial Code of Ethics countenances or permits the furthering of private interests by persons making jurisdictional, judicial or quasi-judicial public decisions in the State of Vermont. There are no exceptions in the statutes or the code of judicial conduct for the furthering of one’s own interests because if allowed, such exceptions would be abused, as is occurring in the case of the proposed Wal*Mart store in St. Albans Town. The furthering of private interest is contrary to the intent of the law, regardless of experience.  

Governor Douglas’s Executive Code of Ethics defines that the

“Appearance of a conflict of interest, as used sections III (A) (2) and (7), means the impression that a reasonable person might have, after full disclosure of the facts, that an Appointee’s judgment might be significantly influenced by outside interests, even though there is no actual conflict of interest.”

The law says no personal interest. Another definition in the Governor’s code states that a conflict of interest does not include any interest that is no greater than that of other persons generally affected by the outcome of a matter. The law says no personal interest.

The Oxford New American Dictionary reads that an ethic is a set of moral principles. It further gives an apropos example:

“the puritan ethic was replaced by the hedonistic ethic.”

The Governor’s ethic seems to be whatever works for developers.

In Section II General Conduct, of the Governor’s ethic, it is written that

“An Appointee shall take all reasonable steps to avoid any action or circumstances, whether or not specifically prohibited by this code, which might result in: Page 2 of 6 (1) Undermining his or her independence or impartiality or action.”

If this issue is raised, the question is: could the appointer or appointee have known, should they have known, did they know or could they not have known that their steps that raised the issue violated the ethic?

Powerful forces are at play in local zoning proceedings, such as constitutional rights and individual and community values regarding private property and environmental protection. With these issues on the table, transparency is crucial for maintaining public trust. Under the ‘Rules’ section of an ethics policy, board members in Vermont are required to disclose any real or perceived conflicts of interest or ex parte communication, and the chair is directed to ask for such disclosure at the beginning of a hearing. This writer witnessed innumerable instances of friendly ex parte communications and camaraderie between St. Albans Town officials and the applicants during the current permitting process for a Wal*Mart store in St. Albans Town whereas their attitudes toward opponents was downright hostile and deciding officials vocally expressed bias against legal opponents of the project.

Board members are required to recuse (remove) themselves from a proceeding in which they have a real or perceived conflict of interest that prevents them from acting fairly, objectively, and in the public interest. Such recusal is an act taken by a board member of his or her own volition. Vermont law provides no authority for boards to require a member to recuse oneself. However, failure to recuse when circumstances suggest recusal is appropriate is grounds for removal.

Conflicts of interest can be broken down into those where a deciding board member has a personal interest in a proceeding, those where the same has a financial interest in a proceeding, and those where the same has exhibited bias or prejudice prior to hearing a case. All are bad.

On 8/11/95, the District 6 Environment Commission issued a permit to Daniel Luneau and J. Philip Gerbode to construct an automobile dealership, Project Permit 6F0396R-5. Additional permits to the project were issued as follows: 5A:5/6/97, 5B:2/04/00, 5C:11/23/01, 5D:2/14/03, 5E:8/12/05, and 5F:10/19/06.

J. Philip Gerbode is a real estate developer who purchased much land surrounding Interstate 89 Exit 20. In 1995, he may have been a member of the St. Albans Group of realtors and developers who were the initial promoters and applicants for a Wal*Mart store in St. Albans. How would it never occur to the family owners of Handy Chevrolet Dealership and a growth interested land developer, who sold the land to the dealership’s owners, that location near to a Wal*Mart store would be advantageous for car sales?

It is mind defying that Luneau and Gov. Douglas would not realize that they had conflicts of interest in the appointments and acceptances of Luneau’s District 6 Environmental Commission Chairmanship, as announced by Douglas on March 14, 2005 and on April 10, 2007.

In the May 6, 2007 edition of the Burlington Free Press an article titled

“Handy Chevrolet inaugurates Exit 20 commercial park,”

Luneau’s co-owner and brother-in-law is quoted as saying that he and these family owned businesses seek to take advantage of the growth that the businesses believe will occur in this area. The new dealership location is one of the first businesses to locate in the established growth centers that would build out from the proposed J.L. Davis development at Exit 20 and within sight of a proposed Wal*Mart store. Another Handy dealership mentioned in the article is diagonally across Route 7 from the proposed entrance to the Wal*Mart store. The article reports:

“Dealership president and general manager Daniel Handy, a native of Franklin County, says he and his family have done well in the area and are positioning themselves to take advantage of expected growth.”

Daniel Luneau is quoted in the article as saying:

“We see our business opportunities enhanced by our new location.”

District #6 Environmental Commission Chairman Luneau was directing whether to permit the Wal*Mart store at the time of this article.

Dan Luneau traveled to Montpelier and testified to the legislature that the “ambiguities” necessary to control development should be eliminated. As Emerson Lynn wrote in an editorial piece, ” That’s why Mr. Luneau’s opposition is so meaningful. He deals with the minutiae of Act 250. He knows how opponents can use the ambiguity of the proposed law to tie proposed projects up in court for years.”  There is no ambiguity about violations of due process as a result of prejudgment and conflict of interest in quasi-judicial decisions.

When Act 250 was changed, Douglas appointed Daniel Luneau to Chair the District #6 Environmental Commission and the judges of the Vermont Environmental Court and Jeffery Davis re-filed for a permit that had been rejected in 1995. The law had been changed to their favor. It was time for returns on the developers’ investments regardless of legitimate objections and due process.

It would be a rare businessman who did not think that what was best for his business was best for Vermont. The fact that a businessperson is making a judicial or quasi-judicial public development decision where he or she might have an interest is cause for suspicion of conflict of interest. Could Chairman Luneau be expected to vote against the “anchor” store, which was key to unleashing the growth that he and his family had been looking forward to since 1995?

When developer-friendly changes to the environmental statutes and changed town bylaws were in place, Governor Douglas personally came to St. Albans to announce the reapplication for a Wal*Mart store that the Vermont Supreme Court had rejected ten years previously.

While running for re-election in fall of 2008, the Governor, in his best “Scissor Hands” persona, returned to St. Albans to lend his support to a developers’ pep rally. He sat proudly on the stage as speakers urged the crowd to harass specifically named, legitimate, community opponents of the project to relinquish their right of appeal. He clearly had a political interest in the project.

While an environmental judge is considering a very serious issue for the future of his state, unbiased conduct in the matter is expected from the highest paid governor in New England. Douglas is a cheerleader for Northwestern Vermont developers. He aggressively pressed the legislature to change Act 250 to allow developers to do what they chose to do more freely. The purpose of nearly all the changes was to restrict public participation, to kill the messengers, to extinguish transparency.

If you think there might have been any collusive behavior when these facts are considered, there is the appearance of an irreconcilable conflict of interest that should not be, even if there is no actual conflict of interest, unless you are not a reasonable person. Such appearance of conflict of interest is a violation the statutes of Vermont.

witchcat, Bakersfield

Governor Douglas has been paraded and is parading himself on a National stage. As co-chair of the RNG Conference he has been seen with his fellow Republican governors and heavy hitting Democratic governors like Ed Rendell .He sat like Zelig in balcony at Obama’s invitation to hear the presidential budget address .Yet even with all this flagrant photo-op bipartisanship he seems unwilling or unable to speak out aggressively against the growing isolation of the Republican Party. Governor Jon Huntsman of Utah is making noises about the damage that the dead-enders will do to the Republican Party as the country’s voters leave them behind .Huntsman claims a good re-think is in order. “The party needs to be more intellectually rigorous, and to compete for the votes of the young, the elites and minorities,” he said in an interview with Politico. A Utah governor’s ability to do this may be a little bit of the ‘only Nixon could go to china thing ‘.

Douglas would have no trouble being heard should he decide to speak ,the microphone and headlines would be his .It would be a courageous thing for one of the last standing  Republicans in New England to take a stand and bring his party back from the conservative brink as Gov. Huntsman is attempting in Utah. For someone that may have national ambitions a clear effort at reality therapy for the party wouldn’t be a bad way to start .It could be just a question of timing ,he can stay low and continue to glide through without getting his head bitten off by the right wing .However anybody who is observing his approach to this current budget situation here in Vermont would realize is that Douglas is not a moderate keeping his head down ,but a conservative keeping his mouth shut .National observers seeing him for the first time may not realize that Douglas,in the words of a Vermont paper ( belatedly observed after the election) is “the kind of radical conservative that voters rejected at the ballot box in November.”

RNC chairman Steele and  Rush Limbaugh got into a pushing contest yesterday over who is the true voice of the Republican party .Steele promptly backed down and begged to be forgiven .Chairman Steele’s mettle leaves something to be desired and commenting on the Rush /Steele flap Gov.Bobby Jindal says “Well, I didn’t follow the day’s events. I’m glad he[Steele] apologized.”.The head of the RNC and Gov.Jindal who was chosen to rebut President Obama’s budget speech are both in alignment with Rush. Maybe its time governor Douglas is given a chance to get above the radar on this .Limbaugh has expressed in no uncertain terms that he wants Obama to fail .White house spokesman Robert Gibbs suggests reporters ask Republican Congressmen if they support  Rush .A fair question for Douglas…Do you support  Limbaugh’s views ?  It is his party .

(crossposted on five before chaos.)

One of the biggest upcoming legislative battles is going to be fought over the Employee Free Choice Act, which basically will make it easier for employees to unionize, giving them a card-check option (50% +1 sign off) as well as giving them the current option of the secret ballot. Of course, this is a huge threat to corporate America, because if working-class wages go up, there's less for those at the top. So, of course, the right wing is putting out blatant lies about it, trying to tell workers that it will "take away their right to a secret ballot", which is complete, utter bullshit. The only thing it's "taking away" is the employer's decision on how employees will see if they want to unionize, and putting the decision where it belongs: with the worker. They know how a lot of people can't be bothered with laborious fact-checking, so they're pinning their hopes on that strategy.

And of course, where would the right wingers be without fear and perpetual pants pooping?  Fear is all they have, and if you listen to the rhetoric, you'd think that if EFCA passes, there will be mandatory abortions, genocide of the plutocracy, and shopping malls blowing up around the nation. This new ad by the SEIU captures (and mocks) the Browntrouser Brigade perfectly:

More of this kind of mockery, please.

Face it, some of us are going to get the opportunity to be a big thing, and others of us are going to get the opportunity to be a part only of the big thing.

Put another way … are you happy with the concept that you may spend your life being an anonymous one of a multitude of little cogs on a big wheel?

I am … and here’s my short story …

I ran across this story (Thom Hartmann Leaves Air America; with interviews with Thom, AA CEO and more, OpEd News, 03/02/09) regarding a friend and individual I have a tremendous amount of admiration for (Thom Hartmann of course).

The article begins:

Today, Monday, March 2, marks a new stage in Thom Hartmann’s career. Last Friday was the last day he functioned as a talk show host for Air America radio. Starting today, Hartmann’s noon to three EST slot will be filled by David Bender, who’s hosted a show on Air America for the past three years. The biggest change and the most significant part of the change is the fact that almost every one of the 60 plus radio stations which aired Thom’s Air America radio show will continue to air his show.

I feel really, really good. What seems an eon (actually six short years) ago I received a call from Thom asking me to assist him in finding a radio time slot.

Let me state two facts: 1) I have tried commission sales several times in my life, and each time I’ve almost starved to death. 2) Thankfully selling Thom as a radio host was easier than giving away ice water to the French Foreign Legion in the deserts of Libya.

In the end (which happened very quickly) I garnered a lot of interest and ultimately helped him find a time slot by talking about what I knew of Thom and how he was ready to present a non-Republican Party oriented talk show.

(Side show: Thom and I were actually in competition for the same now defunct IE America slot, only we weren’t aware of it at the time … the better man won.)

The rest is history made primarily by Louise and Thom Hartmann with some help from a dedicated group of professionals who knew a great thing when they saw/heard/read it. Along the way IE America (run by the auto unions in Detroit) went under and Thom helped develop the business plan that became Air America while simultaneously building his own 100% independent show from the ground up.

I feel really great about my little somewhat anonymous part in all this. I was one little cog on a huge wheel that has churned out something great … the Thom Hartmann radio program.

Congratulations to you Louise and Thom. You’ve done a magnificent job!

And now us cogs gotta get back to work.

Have been visiting family in Kentucky for the last week and am currently in a motel room outside of Cleveland on my way back. More on the trip later. In the meantime, how about another open thread?

• Bevans to be challenged? Scuttlebutt is that Judy Bevans will not get a free shot at the Vermont Democratic Party’s top spot. After Chair Ian Carleton’s resignation, Vice Chair Judy Bevans became acting Chair, arranged for a special election for March 31st 21st, and made it clear she wanted the job in a more permanent way. Very interesting, therefore, that a challenger may have emerged: businessman Paul Millman from Windham County. Millman toyed with a gubernatorial run early last cycle, but is neither a member of the State Committee, nor has he been active in it.

  Millman is a poster child for progressive entrepreneurship, and long time readers may recall that I was enthusiastic about his potential involvement with Democratic politics. This move, though is… odd… for a few reasons, not the least of which is its out-of-nowhere timing. Could it be that some traditional power brokers in the Party are not thrilled with Bevans’ independent streak and have gone recruiting? Coming in from outside to mount a surprise challenge to a well-liked, hard working stalwart of the State Committee is an oddly confrontational way to join the game, after all – not to mention one that will likely end in failure (unless Bevans gets out-organized). Frankly, I think this would be a bad precedent and send a bad message. Hopefully Bevans is watching her flank by making calls and lining up support – and hopefully Millman can come up with a less combative way to introduce himself to the Democratic State Committee.

• Margolis misunderstaning. WIth all due respect for Jon Margolis (and all due appreciation for his kind words about me), he was a bit too quick to dismiss the potential impact of Emily’s List on the Gubernatorial campaign of Secretary of State Deb Markowitz. Margolis:
  

  So EMILY’s list wouldn’t give $2 million in Vermont, where no candidate for governor has yet spent more than about half of that. It gives smaller increment seed money.

  Not so fast, Jon. I chose my words carefully, stating that the report concerning the conversation Sen. Susan Bartlett had with Emily’s List indicated that EL believed that Markowitz needed a $2 million campaign to beat Douglas and was intending to help her get there – not that EL itself was in for $2 million. Consider the math: a Democratic candidate for Governor in Vermont should be able to raise $500-$750k on their own. If we take the high end of that figure ($750k), that means EL is looking at filling up the difference with $1.25 million.

  Do they just write a check? Of course not. Especially since Markowitz herself is on record still perpetuating the shared delusion that there is a $2000 per person (or non-party entity) contribution limit (although in fairness to Markowitz, after the Attorney General came out with that opinion, she could hardly disagree with it).

  What Emily’s list will do is turn to its 6-figure strong membership and solicit contributions on her behalf. Now, $1.25 million is a steep figure, but if 625 people on that list cough up the max, well – there it is. A tough goal, sure – but if you think its impossible, ask Washington Governor Christine Gregoire, the regular recipient of hundreds of thousands of dollars from thousands of Emily’s List contributors.

• Shumlin the way we like him. Go get ’em, Pete.
• Prediction time: Tomorrow’s the big 4-way (okay, technically 5 way) race for the Burlington mayor’s office by way of Instant Runoff Voting. Nobody really has a clue, so my prediction is utterly meaningless, but I’m gonna make one anyway: Republican-in-Independent’s-clothing Smith takes it on the second round. Anybody else have a guess?