(I’m thinking this qualifies as pt 2 of my buy local comments.  Thanks for posting it! – promoted by JulieWaters)

I just read Julie Waters’ posting on Green Mountain Daily entitled “How Vermont can improve its infrastructure and economy part 1: locality, locality, locality,” and wanted to bring everyone up to speed with some similar issues.  State government should definitely lead by example, even going beyond food to include other services that the State contracts out for.  Citizens have been pushing State leaders to introduce responsible contracting legislation during the upcoming session.  A legislative-level Workers Comp Misclassification and Fraud Enforcement Task Force, chaired by Rep. Warren Kitzmiller, is currently meeting monthly.  Too often, public money supports contractors that cheat the system, whether it be by paying sub par wages, offering no health insurance or retirement benefits, misclassifying and miscoding employees, ignoring safety and environmental best practices or rampantly using independent contractors to reduce financial burdens.  

Three examples I’m aware of:

— There is currently a $10 million construction project at Lyndon State College; several of the contractors working on that job are based in New Hampshire, including general contractor H.P. Cummings.  Of course, LSC is located near the Vermont-New Hampshire border.  But, when dealing with State agencies and public institutions, preference should be given to responsible Vermont contractors that employ predominately Vermonters.  There are many Vermont construction laborers/contractors looking for gainful employment, so I hate to see state college work going to our friends from New Hampshire in this time or dire need.  

— The University of Vermont recently broke ground on  James M. Jeffords Hall, a project that involves $3 million secured by Sen. Patrick Leahy.  UVM is an affiliate of the State of Vermont and receives public money each year.  It has come to light that a questionable drywall subcontractor from New Hampshire, Kal-Vin Construction, is slotted for this job.  Kal-Vin is the same outfit that allegedly employed undocumented workers on the Lowe’s project in Essex; the same ownership group was also just nailed by the U.S. Department of Labor in New Hampshire for repeated violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage, overtime and recordkeeping provisions.  Both UVM and the general contractor, DEW Construction, have not verified that Kal-Vin will be working on Jeffords Hall; however, it has been confirmed from several competitors who also bid the job that this is the case.  Apparently, Kal-Vin worked on the University Heights residence halls at UVM, too.

(Please contact UVM President Daniel Fogel and demand that his administration look into this troubling situation and, if necessary, remove seemingly irresponsible contractors from campus.  CONTACT INFO: 802-656-7878 or Daniel.Fogel@uvm.edu.)

— The State of Vermont recently awarded a delivery service contract to FedEx.  Contrary to popular belief, most people who work for FedEx’s Ground and Home Delivery subsidiaries are not FedEx employees.  Before starting work, these drivers sign “Operating Agreements” that identify them as independent contractors.  FedEx’s “independent contractors” shoulder many expenses that an employer typically covers, including truck maintenance, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance and other payroll withholding responsibilities.  There have been several court cases surrounding employment practices by FedEx.  FedEx has also exhibited blatantly anti-union, anti-worker tactics.  For more background info, please see this synopsis of the FedEx debacle:

http://www.americanrightsatwor…

It is inappropriate for public dollars to support businesses whose ethics are in question.  Unfortunately, we’re seeing it happen at the federal and state levels, as well as at our public colleges and universities.  Whether purchasing food, construction or shipping services, it is crucial that public institutions buy responsibly – period.  We definitely need broader support from all political perspectives to make it happen.  With the current recession, the time for action is now.  In addition, this is an important discussion to have if a federal economic bailout comes to fruition, so we can be assured that the massive amounts of money expected to be doled out go to ethical businesses that actually want to improve the lives of American workers.

We’ve seen multiple incidents of Taser use in Vermont in the last few years.  We’ve been told that they’re a less lethal weapon that can be used as a substitute for guns.  

But, in reality, I think what we’re seeing is that they’re becoming the sort of thing that the police will use whenever they want to use force, but non-lethal force.  Take, for example, the case of Steven Burke:

in the midst of being searched, Burke allegedly shouted that he wasn’t going back to jail and tried to run around the parked cruiser, Sheldon said.

At that point, Sheldon, who said he had his Taser out and pointed at Burke while he was being searched, discharged the device, designed to subdue suspects by delivering an electric jolt.

But Sheldon said the Taser prong caught in Burke’s winter coat and the shock it delivered didn’t have the desired effect.

“He said to me afterward that he thought he felt something hit him in the back but he didn’t know what it was,” Sheldon said.

Sheldon said police and Probation and Parole officials caught up with Burke moments later and took him into custody without further incident.

Note the details here: the man was no danger to anybody.  The man was fleeing on foot from a group of police who had a vehicle at their disposal.

I’m just wondering: is this the sort of situation where the police would have fired a gun had a Taser not been available?  I’m having trouble understanding this.

[cross-posted from Norsehorse’s Home Turf, here (original post includes video version)]

A Happy New Year Wish

May the coming twelve months be much better for you and yours than was the case during this year.
Affording for greater opportunities and quality time to put painful or bad experiences within the past,
In an effort to plant and nurture seeds of charity, joy and hope where once existed loathing, grief and fear.
Thereby offering an inspiring example to help others keep faith in continuing on as well as to hold fast,
Working together to build communities with meaningful futures and better chances for them to last.

Morgan W. Brown
Montpelier, Vermont
December 31, 2008

Happy New Year!

As many of you may know, Democracy For America (DFA) is our nation’s largest progressive political action community, which has its headquarter’s right here in VT. DFA is looking for people in the Burlington area who would be willing to host interns. We have interns who come from all around the country to come help, but often times we have to turn away great candidates, because we do not have housing for them.

This is where you come in. We need people to host interns. Some interns are here for a month, others are here for 3 months. They are responsible for food and living expenses, all they need is a place to sleep.

These interns are vital to our success and we would love for you to help us out.

If interested, please contact us at intern@democracyforamerica.com

I’ve talked before about the difference between price and cost: it’s easy to look at the ticket price of something: you can find a cheaper food source, but the health benefits of that cheaper food source may be more poor, so the actual value of the food is not as good, and its overall cost may end up being higher due to poorer health resulting.

So I’m going to make another push here for local business and local purchasing.

Before I begin, let me note that I can be a hypocrite about this: I purchase books from amazon.com and the few books I’ve self-published have gone through a service in another state.  The CDs I’ve produced have been printed out of state and the new CD I’m working on will be a digital-only release, so locality is meaningless in that case.  There are a lot of reasons for these choices, primarily tied in with simplicity and convenience.  I rarely step in a physical bookstore any longer, even though when I do, I am often rewarded.  It’s a hobby of mine to do arrangements of old (17th – 19th century) tunes that are in public domain and I often find old books of sheet music at these bookstores.  I just rarely make the time to go looking for them.  I include this to explain that this post is not about chiding or cajoling, but about thinking through what we pay for and how.

But when it comes to produce, to foodstuff, we do our best to stay local, for multiple reasons:

1. local food tends to be fresher and, therefore, healthier;


2. food shipped locally does not require as many preservatives;


3. food supplied locally does not require nearly the shipping cost and, therefore…


4. …local food has a significantly lower carbon footprint.

So here’s what I find interesting.  If you visit this page, a part of the Vermont Department of Agriculture’s web site, you’ll see this logo:

But when you look at some of the specifics, you find the following:

The food supplier for the Waterbury state office building, the Waterbury correctional facility and the Pittsford Police Academy is Fitz Vogt and Associates.  

Though Fitz Vogt does have a Rutland location, their corporate HQ is in Walpole, NH.  

The Department of Corrections also has a contract to provide consulting for menu support and facility inspections.  Aside from the question of why that job couldn’t be done in-house, that contract appears to be with Around the Corner Catering (I’m not certain of this, but it looks likely, as they’re listed as “Corner Catering”).  Around the Corner is located in Pulteney, NY.

So I’m just making a simple proposal here: when we do business with an outside company to provide services for the State of Vermont, we should make it a priority to see to it that, whenever possible, those providing those services will be paying taxes on the profits they make on those transactions that go back into the state of Vermont’s coffers.   This isn’t about the services provided by these companies.  It’s about where are money is going and what the cost to those services are.

This isn’t a complicated concept, but I have a simple question: when our state government does business with private entities, is it cost effective to go with the cheapest provider of services we can find if their profits will not be used to pay Vermont state taxes?

Or, to put it another way, what’s the profit to getting our services from out of state when we could, instead, pay Vermont businesses?

I keep hearing about how we’re pushing businesses out of the state due to regulations and taxes, without any cogent argument to support this claim.  What I’m suggesting is that there are ways we can seriously support our local businesses that don’t involve lowering taxes and lowering support for services.

At this particular moment, the state has some very big ticket projects, the profits of which are going to the coffers of states some distance from Vermont.  Take, for example, the primary textbook vendor for Community College of Vermont.  This is a company called EdMap.  

Let me be clear: this post has nothing to do with the quality of service provided by EdMap.  It’s about the location of the company and whether or not it’s a good idea to have a company which is located in Nelsonville, OH

If you've been reading here or watching the news, you know that Douglas is trying to have it all his way, as in his way or the highway. We've started to see some alternate points of view being raised, but he's still had the bulk of the coverage.

Tomorrow is another chance to hear another voice. Paul Cillo was a great legislator from Hardwick until he was voted out in the “Take Back Vermont” civil union backlash. He's now the President and Executive Director of the Public Assets Institute, which is working on providing public policy and advocacy resources for Vermonters, right now primarily in the area of health care, education, and family economic security.

 Listen to Paul tomorrow on Vermont Edition, either on your radio or online, and get a different view of Douglas's neo-Hooverism.

On January 20th, 2009, Barack Obama will be sworn in as President of the United States. The second he takes the oath of office his hands will be covered with blood.

I’m talking about the blood of a Palestinian people who have been abused by their Arab neighbors and slaughtered by the Israelis (with direct support of the United States government).

Obama will have a choice: turn his back on AIPAC and the foreign policy neo-cons of America, or smear that blood all over his body. Judging by Obama’s so far obsequious and fawning words when it comes to Isreal, I’m betting he’ll be doing a lot of smearing.

Obama’s obvious distaste for the Palestinians is mirrored quite well in his invitation to well known radical right wing religious preacher Rick Warren to perform the invocation at the inauguration. Obama was happy to accept the money and volunteer efforts and votes from folks who feel very strongly about human rights. And Obama has been just as happy to proclaim that “change” didn’t include them or the folks who want to enter into a same sex marriage.

Apparently the change Obama has been talking about referred to the color of one’s skin … not the politics of death and destruction and deprivation our federal government has been practicing for decades.

I’ve been out of town visiting family so this is a catch-up to something posted several days ago. Sorry if this is old.

Okay, so on 12/23 there was a diary by odum which included the following missive from Burlington City Councilor Jane Knodell about an upcoming caucus.

The caucus is open to voters of ward 2 who wish to be members of the Progressive Party. Since the Progressive Party is a party of principles, membership requires subscribing to the Statement of Principles in the Party Charter…

Inspiring a snarky comment by odum about top-down versus bottom-up party organization. Which in turn inspired a brief outbreak of Dem/Prog snark. Now, I didn’t have particularly strong feelings about Knodell’s notice. But it does seem remarkably curious, coming from the same person who was, only a few days earlier, quoted thusly by Shay Totten:  

Progressive City Councilor Jane Knodell (Ward 2) was in the crowd at Wright’s announcement. She said later that Wright “did a great job” and she thinks he’ll “have broad appeal across the political spectrum and across the city.”

Great job and broad support? Is this the makings of a “Progressives for Wright” group? Nope, said Knodell. So she’s backing Bob Kiss, right? Wrong again.

“I am not going to be publicly supporting any candidate this mayoral election,” said Knodell.

Let me see if I understand. Knodell expects party members to adhere to party principles. Fair enough. But she doesn’t feel the need to publicly support one of her party’s leading officeholders?

Color me confused.  

In a recent interview on VPR, Gov. Douglas discussed economic development, electric rates, and VT Yankee (among other things). He said “This is the cheapest power that we have. We’re talking about this in the context of the greatest economic crisis we’ve faced in some time, and one of the key costs of doing business in Vermont and in this part of the country is the cost of electricity.”

According to the Economic Census, that’s not true.  For manufacturers, the cost of purchased electricity as a percentage of the value of shipments ranges from 0.2% to 2.1%.  For perspective, the cost of materials for manufacturers ranges from 31% to 57% and the cost of total compensation from 12% to 32%.

Even though New England electric prices are higher than other parts of the country, it’s pretty clear that electricity is NOT “one of the key costs of doing business in Vermont”.

Even if we could wave a wand and reduce the cost of electricity by 15%, the impact on the cost of products manufactured in VT would be negligible (see below). [The figures are adjusted to reflect Vermont’s higher electric costs than the national average.]

Savings per $100 of value if elec. costs drop 15%

$0.09 Trans. equip.

$0.12 Computers & electronic products

$0.12 Machinery

$0.14 Furniture

$0.15 Electrical equip. & appliances

$0.16 Food mfg.

$0.20 Printing

$0.21 Fabricated metal products

$0.27 Chemicals

$0.27 Wood products

$0.36 Plastics & Rubber

$0.42 Paper mfg.

$0.43 Nonmetallic mineral products

Obviously, businesses want to manage their costs as best they can. But to say that electricity is a “key” cost of doing business is a gross exaggeration.

The governor is entitled to his own opinions, but he’s not entitled to his own facts.