BP      Jack McCullough      JulieWaters      kestrel9000      Maggie Gundersen      odum      Sue Prent 
                          

Big Burlington Telecom Thursday: Dockets, Dialogues, Ultimatums, Investigations

by: odum

Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 22:26:58 PM EST


(NOTE: 2 of the 3 pieces cited/printed below seem to have been made public by Haik at BurlingtonPol many hours before I caught wind of them. You should visit his site if you haven't been. Good stuff.

NOTE 2: Briggs had the two emails as well earlier in the day. I really fell down on the linky/hat-tipping job.)

A lot of news in the increasingly fluid Burlington Telecom issue today, as several things have happened to raise the temperature even more.

First is a letter from the 16th (Monday) that has surfaced from the Vermont Department of Public Service on behalf of Commissioner David O'Brien sent to Burlington Mayor Bob Kiss and City Council President Bill Keogh. Against the backdrop of a Burlington Telecom-focused docket pending at the Public Service Board (Docket 7044, which includes as parties DPS, Burlington, and Comcast), the letter suggests that all those involved (including the City Council) begin a dialogue on BT's survival, cautioning:

Steps now being taken and considered by the City, such as refinancing BT's debt and
changing its governance structure, could easily become points of contention before the PSB. Providing more fodder for litigation is not in anyone's interest. Unilateral actions by the City are more likely to become contentious if they fail to recognize the interests and concerns of the DPS.

Ominous, yes, but nearly as ominous as what follows:

I must also be clear, however, that this Department has a responsibility to fully investigate violations and potential violations of Public Service Board orders and other legal
provisions relating to BT. We intend to do so.

Sounds ugly. O'Brien may feel he can be magnanimous with talks of a "dialogue" because he clearly knows he's been handed Burlington Telecom by the short hairs (and is likely loving every minute of it). The DPS threats may also give context not simply to the recent City Council vote on the proposed refinancing, but today's ante-upping moves by two City Council Democrats that further distinguish themselves and at least some in the Council from the actions of the Kiss administration.  

odum :: Big Burlington Telecom Thursday: Dockets, Dialogues, Ultimatums, Investigations
First was an email from Councilor Joan Shannon to Mayor Kiss:

On November 11, 2009 the Ad Hoc Committee on BT Governance requested certain information in order to better understand the current operations of BT and its governance and oversight structure.

[...]Ken Schatz has informed me that BT management and the administration are willing to share this information in Executive Session and then collect all materials at the end of the Executive session.  This is not acceptable to the Committee.

[...]In order for the Committee to have time to review this information prior to our next meeting on Tuesday November 24, they need to have this information in their possession before the weekend.  Please let me and the other Committee members know when this information will be available for us to pick up at City Hall by the end of today.  I know that this may seem like short notice, but really we have been asking for this since November 11 and can no longer wait.

In addition, the Council, as the ultimate governing body is entitled to any information we request in order to make fully informed decisions.  The Council also needs all the above information in order to either approve or disapprove of the concept of borrowing $60 million dollars.  We also need the ability to consult with independent experts who can advise us on these issues.  Certainly anyone who receives this information should be willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement and I would not object to that requirement.  I do object to the administration holding information hostage.

It's clear that the relationship between the Mayor's office and many on the City Council has soured so badly that some Councilors are no longer willing to accept anything whatsoever from the administration simply on good faith. Good faith is no longer an operative concept here.

As if to carve that point in stone, Councilor Ed Adrian threw down the gauntlet once and for all with an email of his own:

We have, over a period of time, been asking as individual Councilors for many of the documents that were requested of the Administration at the Council's November 16, 2009 meeting.  Some of these requests have been for weeks, some for months and in some instances years.

[...]Bob, without getting all of the documentation that we have requested and without having a third party expert interpret this information for us, I will simply not be able to vote to continue the enterprise of Burlington Telecom in its current construction.  If this condition is not met, I will also do my very best to convince others to do the same.

Bob, at the Ad Hoc Committee on Governance for Burlington Telecom, Joe McNeil said that if after asking we were not getting the information that we needed as Councilors from the Administration to make decisions, then we needed to demand that information.

Based on that advice Bob, I am demanding that you provide us with the information requested and that you provide us with the moneys to obtain the resources necessary to make that information relevant.

It's amazing to read this while considering how different the whole situation would now be if Kiss and Leopold had simply had a tried-and-true "mistakes were made," mea culpa-ridden press conference and pledged to work with the council when this all broke in the first place.

Maybe (er) next time?

The complete documents excerpted above follow:





Dear Mayor Kiss,

On November 11, 2009 the Ad Hoc Committee on BT Governance requested certain information in order to better understand the current operations of BT and its governance and oversight structure.  Among the requested information is the Shanahan report and Business Plan.  Chris Burns explained that it is really the Pro Formas that currently serve as a business plan.  

Ken Schatz has informed me that BT management and the administration are willing to share this information in Executive Session and then collect all materials at the end of the Executive session.  This is not acceptable to the Committee.  The Committee does not want to spend our valuable meeting time getting familiar with these items.  The Committee would like to receive copies of the Shanahan report for their review in preparation for the meeting.  I fully understand the confidentiality is of the utmost importance to the operations of BT.  If the administration and BT management would like Committee members to sign Non Disclosure Agreements I am amenable to that stipulation so long as the Agreement is reasonable and appropriate in scope.  

In order for the Committee to have time to review this information prior to our next meeting on Tuesday November 24, they need to have this information in their possession before the weekend.  Please let me and the other Committee members know when this information will be available for us to pick up at City Hall by the end of today.  I know that this may seem like short notice, but really we have been asking for this since November 11 and can no longer wait.

In addition, the Council, as the ultimate governing body is entitled to any information we request in order to make fully informed decisions.  The Council also needs all the above information in order to either approve or disapprove of the concept of borrowing $60 million dollars.  We also need the ability to consult with independent experts who can advise us on these issues.  Certainly anyone who receives this information should be willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement and I would not object to that requirement.  I do object to the administration holding information hostage.

Again, I ask that you please respond to this email by the end of the day so that we can move forward in getting the information that we need.

Sincerely,

Joan Shannon
City Councilor
Ad Hoc Committee on Governance, Chair

November 19, 2009

Dear Bob:

I would like to follow-up on Karen Paul's letter of the other day and Joan Shannon's letter of today.  We have, over a period of time, been asking as individual Councilors for many of the documents that were requested of the Administration at the Council's November 16, 2009 meeting.  Some of these requests have been for weeks, some for months and in some instances years.  The information contained in these documents will likely range from the mundane to the esoteric.  Many of us will need help interpreting and understanding them to do our jobs.  In addition, the audit and its off-shoots will require money.

Bob, my understanding is that the Administration will soon be requesting a budget amendment to rectify an "overpayment" of PILOT monies made to the City by BT .  The overpayment amount is in the 100s of thousands of dollars.  My understanding is that most of this payback will come from the  DPW for this fiscal year.  I am requesting that since you were able to come up with these monies out of the budget of another Department, that you look hard, and that on or before November 25, 2009, you find another $250,000.00 to be put into a special account, to be distributed by a majority of the Council in obtaining independent and expert review of the many working parts that BT contains.  

Bob, without getting all of the documentation that we have requested and without having a third party expert interpret this information for us, I will simply not be able to vote to continue the enterprise of Burlington Telecom in its current construction.  If this condition is not met, I will also do my very best to convince others to do the same.

Bob, at the Ad Hoc Committee on Governance for Burlington Telecom , Joe McNeil said that if after asking we were not getting the information that we needed as Councilors from the Administration to make decisions, then we needed to demand that information.

Based on that advice Bob, I am demanding that you provide us with the information requested and that you provide us with the moneys to obtain the resources necessary to make that information relevant.

The City and the people that populate it deserve no less from their elected officials.

Heading in to the Thanksgiving holiday, I am thankful for the fact that although we vehemently disagree on how to proceed in this instance, I know that we are all trying to do what we think is best for the City.  Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.  For now, I remain,

Very truly yours,
Ed Adrian

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
One point ... (4.00 / 1)
According to BT and the Burlington mayor's office they were told by Obrien's DPS to hold off on any reporting to the state actions regarding the inability of BT to pay back the intra-city loan until September. Obrien, it seems, never bothered to ask his staff about the issue before he went publicly ballistic about the issue.

This hasn't been out in the public domain, but now it is.

And if the above isn't firm evidence the Dems are ONCE AGAIN walking down the path hand in hand with the Republicans I don't know what is. Why is the council insisting on tying Kiss' and Leopold's actions to the future of BT?

This problem was about city governance. BT did absolutely nothing improper. A city fund was used in an accepted fashion (and yes ... the entire council knew this general fund was used as a revolving loan fund for city and city associated departments), and then the credit market collapsed making it impossible for BT to secure the funding that would have allowed for the timely payback of the city's loan. DPS was notified quite promptly according to BT and the mayor's office, and DPS told the city to wait until this September to worry about dealing with the problems presented.

BT now has a solid chance at getting the funding needed to pay back the city and refinance their existing debt to help continue operations ... and the Burlington Democrats are busy swapping spit with the Burlington Republicans in an attack against Kiss that could end up bad for Burlington Telecom.

Sounds just like the WMD and Iraq .... damn who gets bombed in the process ... the Dems just gotta be better Reps than the Reps.

It's about community ... RAMABAHAMA DOT NET (only it is still under construction ... isn't that life?)


very mixed emotions (4.00 / 3)
I have not stepped into this controversy because I do have very mixed emotions.

First, I am a Burlington Telecom customer.  I love BT, and I need BT for my business.  I do not want to go back to Comcast.  When I had Comcast my internet frequently crashed.  I could not get the high speed internet service my business requires, and my overall rates were higher.  Comcast is only competitive now because they lowered their rates in an effort to undercut BT.  My daughter, who is  paramedic in Charleston, SC, has Comcast, and there is no alternate service.  Without competition, Comcast rates are exorbitant and the speed is slow.  Finally, Comcast and other giants are trying to control the internet by blocking some senders or sending their emails, etc through at a much slower rate.  Thus it concerns me greatly that some of the councilors who are so against BT are not BT customers, have never experienced the difference, and do not understand how critical BT is to many city businesses like mine.

Second, I attended many meetings of the "open government" task force.  Over and over again, the people testifying at those meetings said they want to know what is going on in city government.  They demanded openness and transparency.  I am a public works commissioner and work well with the Kiss administration on many issues.  Overall I am pleased with the direction of much of what the administration and city council does.  I love living in Burlington and giving my time as a commissioner.  That said, I am also disappointed that this whole process has not been more open and transparent.  I would understand if the mayor and CAO had said we cannot divulge all of this financial data due to competition with Comcast and others and will review in executive session, but the councilors need to see that material and have time to review.  Whenever I or members of my firm review "trade secret" documents, we must sign a non-disclosure.  

Why couldn't city councilors have the documents they need to see, with adequate time for review to formulate questions, and with the professional standard of signing a non-disclosure?  That would seem like a win-win to me.  I do not want to lose BT, so I do not want its financial and operating records compromised in open discussions where Comcast and banks may take advantage.  This would also be in the best interest of Burlington taxpayers as I am sure that no councilor wants a fire sale of our valued utility that becomes a tax burden for years.

Third, given the political and performance climate, BT should have more review and not report directly to the CAO.  Many of us have advocated for more BT review for a long time, as their is a fully functioning commission over Burlington Electric Department and over our water treatment, etc at Department of Public Works.

Fourth, I am a Democrat.  This vitriolic bickering between the council and mayor's office is turning many people off to all city politicians.  The average person in town believes either the mayor's office and appointees are entirely corrupt or that city councilors are an angry grandstanding bunch all jostling for a chance to run in the next mayoral election.  The anger and games must stop.  It is tearing the city apart and ruining many reputations and what may have been promising political futures.  The people I am hearing from want an entirely new council and Mayor's office.  I think some very talented people were elected in March and hope the Council will begin to coalesce into a team on behalf of all Burlingtonians.

Finally, I have worked with DPS on a variety of issues since 2003 when I served as a paralegal for New England Coalition at the uprate hearings for Vermont Yankee.  That is when I founded Fairewinds Associates (which I incorporated with the SOS in 2005).  My firm offers paralegal services and expert witness testimony.  As a former nuclear industry employee and with my paralegal expertise, most of my work revolves around nuclear safety and reliability issues at nuclear power plants in the US as well as some in Canada and more recently overseas.  As an individual and as a firm, I have oftentimes found it quite challenging to work with David O'Brien and DPS.  The DPS is supposed to be the people's advocate.  Many times, whether it is for Fairpoint, wind power and other renewables, or issues regarding Vermont Yankee, I have seen O'Brien and DPS come down on the side of the corporations without what I believe was adequate review of the public's interest.  I have looked at expert witness testimony in all those areas and know for a fact that the none of the corporate experts were given short shrift, while many individual and small business experts have been challenged by DPS itself.  Yet, the small business and independent experts have been right on Fairpoint, wind, and VY.  Accordingly, DPS was notified in a timely manner regarding BT, and my understanding from several insiders is that the city was also directed to wait on the issue.  DPS should be working with the City to rectify BT's issues, not to undercut BT so that it becomes leftovers for cable industry or high-priced banks to pull apart.

When Tim Nulty helped to conceive Burlington Telecom, it was an effort to make media more accessible and not held in private corporate bondage.  No, I am not anti-corporation, but I do believe that utilities should belong to the public.  Burlington Electric Department, for example, has proven itself to be a sound investment that is responsive to taxpayer needs and concerns.  I hope BT may follow in BED's footsteps.


[ Parent ]
Hear, hear!!! (4.00 / 2)
When I ran for the Selectboard here in Essex, I participated in a candidate debate on Channel 17 where we were asked if we thought it would be a good idea to have an expanded Burlington Telecom enterprise that could operate in Essex.  I believed then -- and continue to feel now -- that a county-wide, publicly-owned utility such as Burlington Telecom is desirable.  That said, the current difficulties in Burlington certainly cloud not only BT's future but the thought of such an expanded telecom utility.  I hope the good folks in the Mayor's office and on the City Council can calm down and deliberate maturely so that this matter can preserve a quality BT with, as Maggie suggests, a different form of oversight.

Regarding open government, I was impressed that Burlington had an open government task force, and I reviewed many of its documents.  Yet, the wishes of the citizens do not always translate into good conduct by elected officials.  Vermont has a long history of support for open government, and a statute that has been liberally interpreted by the courts.  Certainly, it takes public officials who support not just the letter of the open meetings law but also its spirit.  But, even more, it takes an involved citizenry to hold to account those officials who want to use inappropriate executive sessions as a shield.  There are legitimate reasons, as Maggie points out, for confidentiality to govern certain deliberations and certain documents, but by and large, sunshine in government is always a good antiseptic.


[ Parent ]
Contributing Editors:
Caoimhin Laochdha
Christian Avard
greenvtster
JDRyan
mataliandy
NanuqFC

Front Pager Emeriti:
Kagro X
Vermonter







GMD Links
Vermont Daily Briefing
Rational Resistance
VT News Guy
VT Digger
Minor Heresies
What's the Point?
Vermont Yankee, evacuation plans, & more
Mulish Behavior
Political Animal (with Steve Benen)
Reason and Brimstone
Blazing Indiscretions
sneigwh
Dohiyi Mir
Blier Watch
five before chaos
Blue Hampshire
Blue News Tribune
Burlington Pol
Norsehorse
Rip & Read
Integral Psychosis
VT Secession
She's Right (conservative)
VT Bloggernaut
Morgan's Gov. race blog
Bureaucracy Blog
Austanspace

National

Congress Matters
Daily Kos
Open Left
BlogPac
Talking Points Memo
My Left Wing
MyDD
Docudharma
Glenn Greenwald
Firedoglake
Atrios (Eschaton)
Think Progress
Driftglass
Pam's House Blend
Hullabaloo (Digby)
The Plum Line (Sargent)

Legacy Media Blogs

Vermont View
vt buzz
Blurt (7 Days)

Non-political

Candleblog
iBrattleboro
WKVT 1490 AM
Vermont Mornings
False 45th
Bosox Wally
Welcome Campground
Yorick Lives
The Sap is Running

International

The Irish Independent
Comment is free...(Guardian UK)
Al Jazeera
Pulse Media
Global Voices
All Voices
Vermonters for a Just Peace in Israel/Palestine
About GMD   Contact Us

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Search




Advanced Search


Active Users
Currently 4 user(s) logged on.

    follow the 50SBN on Twitter




    Specialized Feeds:

    Google Reader or Homepage
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe in Rojo
    R|Mail
    Add to Technorati Favorites!


    RSS FEED





    Powered by: SoapBlox