After a two-day delay due to holiday travel, we proudly present the Blockbuster 3-D edition! Watch out for flying digits!
The Once and Future Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell, for salvaging his position thanks to a last-minute personal revelation. After a difficult 2012 session including frequent delays, abortive debates, confusion, contentiousness, and disorganization which led to a last-minute rush and belated adjournment… and after spending months blaming everyone but himself for all of the above… Campbell has apparently realized that some of that stuff was, incredibly, his fault.
“I had a lot of shortcomings in the first term, I’m not going to back away, I’m not going to make excuses,” Campbell said. “I’ve certainly learned from them. I’ve always believed communication is the most important aspect of what any leader can have. I think I failed there. The office was always busy. I wasn’t listening to everyone, I was listening to a small group of people.”
“All of you know my time management skills may not be the best,” Campbell said. “I am a poster child for ADD.”
This deathbed conversion, coming on the eve of the Senate Democratic caucus’ leadership vote, was enough to convince a majority to give Campbell another shot. In the process, they set aside the question of whether someone with poor time management skills is really a good choice for the office.
Of course, now the real job starts. Will Campbell actually change his ways, or will the caucus’ benevolence result in two more years of dysfunction?
journalistic brown-nosing, of which we had two prime examples in the past week. Most egregiously, there was Paul Heintz’ Iron John experience with the Governor. Heintz fell into a trap on this one; Shumlin invited him to go huntin’. It must have been hard to turn him down. And having gone, he almost had to write about it.
But he could have — and should have — said no. He put himself in an inherently conflicted position. No matter how he wrote the piece, he was essentially serving as Shumlin’s fluffer, displaying him as a real human being who likes to do stuff that “real Vermonters” do. And although part of me sympathizes with Heintz, he still deserves to catch some grief. And we are happy to throw some his way.
Our other groundward thumb goes to VTDigger’s Andrew Stein, for his beatification of outgoing Mental Health Commissioner Patrick Flood. According to his article, Flood’s abrupt departure is a subject of universal lamentation. He performed heroically, earning the approbation of all concerned.
Let me make clear that I’m not being critical of Mr. Flood, who (by all accounts) is an accomplished public servant. I have been, and continue to be, very critical of the policy he was implementing, but he didn’t create the policy. And in this case, my criticism is aimed at a journalistic hagiography. When I read the piece, I wondered how it came to be written in the first place. It certainly doesn’t add anything to the public’s understanding of the issues. It doesn’t do much, except for burnishing Flood’s public image. Listen, the guy deserves a Good Conduct Medal for his work under difficult circumstances. But is it Digger’s job to do the honors?
After the jump: a theatrical mystery, an unlivable wage, and… I say nice things about a Republican.
State Representative Heidi Scheuermann (R-Stowe), for a remarkably clear-eyed diagnosis of what ails the Vermont Republican Party. In an opinion piece published in some area newspapers and also available on her website, she outlines a way out of the wilderness and back to relevance for her party. While Randy Brock is saying he would have done more of the same if only he’d had more money, and Darcie “Hack” Johnston promises that Lenore Broughton is ready to dump more of her inheritance down the black hole of Vermonters First, and Republican leaders in general say all they have to do is catch up with the Democrats in microtargeting the electorate. The latter is true, but information is only as effective as its application and “messaging” is only as effective as the message. Scheuermann acknowledges the diminished state of the party and offers some good ideas that her elders ought to listen to.
Not that I entirely agree with her, of course. But she makes a good case in Republican terms. And I definitely agree that our system works better when there is a credible and articulate conservative party. Her piece is well worth reading, and I hope other Republicans are listening.
Given their recent track record, I doubt it.
Northern Stage, one of the region’s strongest theatre companies, for suddenly and mysteriously parting ways with Brooke Ciardelli, its founder and artistic director. Her departure will take effect almost immediately. It’s a stunning end — and an unkind kiss-off — to the person who built Northern Stage from nothing into a highly respected organization.
This fall, Northern Stage hired its first Executive Director. Less than two months latter, it cuts ties with Ciardelli. From the timing alone, I have to conclude that the Executive Director’s hiring led to Ciardelli’s departure. One member of the Northern Stage board told the Valley News that Ciardelli “was a little bit ahead of us,” which is an odd statement considering that she’s been working with the Board for sixteen years. Ciardelli’s comment? “There’s a lot that I’m not at liberty to say today.”
Maybe there were good reasons for the split. But we haven’t heard them. And I hope there were damn good reasons, because this is an awful way to end one of the most noteworthy careers in the history of twin state theater.
Vermont Law School, a worthy institution facing tough times. Enrollment is suffering due to a nationwide surfeit of law-school graduates. VLS is cutting staff and programs to rebalance its books.
Way back in 1985, the great folksinger Tom Paxton wrote a song called “One Million Lawyers,” which bemoaned the various plagues and disasters that have befallen humankind and then noted the most perilous of all: “In ten years, we’re gonna have one million lawyers!” Well, it’s been 27 years, and we have more than 1.1 million lawyers. On a broader scale, I’m very glad to see that we finally — FINALLY — have reached the market’s saturation point for legal eagles. But I’m sorry to see the fallout affecting VLS. I wish them the best in meeting their challenges.
The Skinny Pancake, for weaseling its way out of Burlington’s “livable wage” ordinance in its new contract with the Burlington Airport. The Skinny Pancake is a wonderful Vermont success story; two twenty-something brothers start out with a food cart, then build a restaurant in Burlington, then add another in Montpelier, and now become the primary food server for the airport.
But its bid for the contract was contingent on gaining exemption from the city’s requirement that all businesses pay a livable wage. And it got the exemption, even though two other bidders for the BTV contract were willing to abide by the ordinance. City officials say the Skinny Pancake was the clear overall winner based on a variety of criteria. But it’s too bad that the elevation of a homegrown business will come at the expense of its employees.
C/NET reporter Declan McCullagh, for setting off a firestorm around Senator Patrick Leahy — and for doubling down on his story even after it had been denied by the Senator. McCullagh initially reported that Leahy had amended his update of the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act to allow government agencies warrantless access to everybody’s e-mails and other electronic communications. The story set off a deluge of criticism (including a post here at GMD). Leahy quickly denied the whole thing.
His explanation: as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, his name is on the bill. But at this stage in the process, a number of amended versions are in circulation. According to the Senator, McCullagh got hold of one of those, and presumed that Leahy supported it. Which seems credible to me.
Faced with this denial and explanation, McCullagh pressed forward with his version, describing Leahy’s explanation as an “about-face” in abandoning “his proposal.” And the reporter smugly noted that Leahy’s denial “came a few hours after” his original article was posted.
Journalists (and heck, bloggers too) love to feel like they’re having an impact, and they love to take credit for doing so. But in this case, McCullagh is twisting the narrative to place himself in the center of the story — and to try to validate his original article, which seems to have been based on a misunderstanding of Senate procedures.
Not sure I completely buy it, but here’s Skinny P’s response that I received in my FB messages:
http://skinnypancake.com/2012/…
My thoughts on this. And I think it cool that we could get a local eatery like SP to run the airport concession.
But no one is forcing SP to open at the airport. If there is better $ to be made elsewhere, through lower wages, perhaps that is where they should focus. There must be som compelling reason to go through this to get the airport locations.
An aside:
Can a SP employee afford to eat at the SP?
I would hope yes. But I don’t know.
Think of how much more local farms and local businesses could be supported if more people made real (or livable) wages and could spend to eat at SP or Flatbread or shop at the Coop on a regular basis.
Hello all,
I was just informed of this thread. Very thorough. Some observations and counter points to contribute to the conversation:
1. Regarding the comment, “its bid for the contract was contingent on gaining exemption from the city’s requirement that all businesses pay a livable wage. And it got the exemption, even though two other bidders for the BTV contract were willing to abide by the ordinance.” The two other bidders were no more willing than we were. All three bidders submitted a response with TWO scenarios…one included the LWO, one did not. The Free Press article makes it sound otherwise, which has caused a lot of confusion. If the exemption was not granted to us, we could have turned down the application and the next best applicant would have had the same opportunity to request an exemption, move forward or turn down the opportunity. It is worth mentioning that the Airport said it would not apply in April, might apply in May, would not apply in June and would apply in September.
DOUG: two people have recommended to me that we meet in person today. I understand you are the author of the LWO. Congratulations on your work. I am eager to meet in person. This is an important issue for our community. I have a few clarifications to your comments:
1. I spoke with City Market about their compensation package today. They only meet the JFP when an employee has been with them for a year. That really is profoundly different than a dishwasher getting paid the LWO on day one of work.
2. City Market said their JFO was $12.55 and the employee buys the healthcare in full. It was not clear at all to me that there was ’employer assistance’ here. So, $12.55 MINUS health care is dramatically different than $13.39 PLUS health care. By my back of envelope calculation just now, the difference is $13.39 vs $15.99/hr or $12,550 per person per year…that is ALOT of money!
Doug: you write,”It is no surprise that some people say that $17.71 seems a bit high for a dishwasher. But that’s not the real standard. If he contributed to the cost of health insurance, the LW would be lower by four dollars per hour. Readers have not been told this.” If I am NOT misinformed, your calculation is mistaken. The LWO with health care is $13.39 plus health care. Health care runs at about $450 a month or $5400 a year or $2.60 an hour. $13.39 + 2.60 is $15.99/hr. That is still completely unaffordable for a restaurant to pay a first day dishwasher. Not even City Market, a unionized Coop that has the highest per sq ft income and per capita income of any Coop in the country affords that. In addition, our request for the exemption worked off of $15.84/hr and clearly showed we would be deeply in the red at that rate.
Next: respectfully, the following statement reflects a HUGE omission of understanding for you, Doug. Please see my explanation below: “SP already charges $12.95 for top end crepes and that includes the cost of local inputs. So it would seem that Mr. Adler is suggesting that the difference between 12.95 and $20 would be the result of paying the LW. This is most unlikely.” At both of our restaurants, we pay about 4% of sales towards our lease. At the airport, we pay 10% of our sales towards our lease. The difference between $12.95 and $20 would be the combined cost of the massive increase in rent and the LWO on top of the local food premium. Anecdotally, 10% of sales is industry standard in airports…and that’s why airport food is so darned expensive.
Finally: I do not suggest that the City Council eliminate the LWO. It makes total sense–and I comment you for your work, Doug–that City employees and Contractors paid by the City should make the LWO or else they will have to seek social services and the City will pay for it otherwise anyway. What does not make sense to me is how the Skinny is categorized as a Contractor since we PAY the City (not vise versa) and MANY other for profit businesses lease from the City without being subject to the LWO.
It is also clear that all restaurants, supermarkets, and farmers can’t pay the LWO…and many retailers and other businesses too. If such a large % of our conscientious, caring small business community can’t get near to paying this wage on day one and every day after for all employee…what does that say about where this bar is set? Could the ‘bar’ be looked at…could it apply for people who stay for a year or more in a business? Might it be different in different industries to reflect the realities we have? I would LOVE and be PROUD to meet a standard…the fact that my business, which spends as much time, money and effort working on social responsibility can not meet this standard ought to be some indication…unless you think I’m just greedy and blowing hot air here, but my record of action clearly proves otherwise.
This is a real conversation folks. As the center of the issue, this has been a tough conversation to endure. But I am here and ready to dialogue and be a case study. Why isn’t this working, even for a deeply and clearly socially responsible business? Let’s figure it out…but please, try to be honest, accurate and understanding. Personally, I pledge to try my best.
Good night.
-Benjy
Mike: just noticed your comments. Good news! I have answers…
You write: “But no one is forcing SP to open at the airport. If there is better $ to be made elsewhere, through lower wages, perhaps that is where they should focus. There must be som compelling reason to go through this to get the airport locations.” There is a REAL and DEEPLY COMPELLING reason: the Skinny Pancake is on a mission to make local food affordable, accessible, part of every day eats. We are an active, dedicated participant in the local food movement. The airport is the gateway to & from VT for so many people and currently fails to tell the story of our remarkable agricultural economy, of the fact that VT is the LEADER in the local food movement nationwide. We recognized that opportunity and due to our mission we are willing to take on EXTRA RISK and LOWER REWARD FINANCIALLY because this is such a remarkable opportunity to realize our social mission.
“Can a SP employee afford to eat at the SP?” First, they all get a free meal with each shift. Second, they all get 50% off when not working. Third, coffee and tea is free for them ALWAYS. That aside, I certainly would like to think they can afford to eat with us. Our whole schtick is to keep local food affordable and accessible. Our plates are $8 – $12. There are plenty peers of my staff that eat with us.
Ok, for real…good night.
-Benjy
Wow, it is alarming to read Doug Hoffer’s comments here and know that he is State Auditor with such a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of margins in a business. In his comments here, Hoffer suggests that the Skinny Pancake only needs to raise the cost of its food by 10.2% if their rent and food costs go up by 10.2%. Mr. Adler from the Skinny Pancake is then put in the awkward position of having to explain the basic concept of margins TO OUR STATE AUDITOR! Anybody who has ever conducted any business of any kind understands that each cost line item must equal a certain percentage of your sales to survive. If you add 10% to your costs but only increase your priced by 10%, you obviously don’t come out with the same margins. Here’s the basic math. Say your initial cost is 10% of sales, and sales is 100%. If you add 10% to that, but only charge 10% extra, then you have 20% / 110%, which comes out to a margin of 18%. So if you want to have a 10% margin on something when your price doubles from 10% to 20%, you have to charge 200% to keep your margin.
The fact that Mr. Hoffer didn’t understand that basic concept of margins, and needed the lesson in basic math from a small business owner to explain that you need to increase your prices by a lot more than 10.2% to keep your marigns if your costs go up by 10.2%, shows that he has put no time into understanding how business works. Ever. Mr Hoffer: take a class in small business, for the good of all of us in VT. Your position requires you to have this basic level of understanding.
Moreover, his bias against the Skinny Pancake, or more accurately, his bias in favor of the Livable Wage Ordinance that he obviously is very attached to, is evident throughout his posts. For example, he says City Market’s wages are higher because of the benefits that City Market offers, but he doesn’t do that for the benefits that Mr Adler lists (a free meal with each shift, free coffee and tea at all times, 50% off food when not working–and those are just the ones listed by Mr Adler here). He omits the cost of payroll tax, that as you pay more in salary, your payroll tax (which is a percentage of salary) goes up. Worse, he continues to ignore the enormous difference between what City Market pays in the first year–all figures are only after a year of full time employment, while the LWO requires it on the first day of work. In the restaurant industry, there is notoriously high turnover. That he glosses over this gigantic difference shows a serious bias. Mr Adler keeps bringing it up, and Mr. Hoffer keeps brushing it aside.
The bias continues in other glaring ways. Hoffer continues to perpetuate the myth that the Skinny Pancake did something different than Brueggers or Dunkin Donuts when it came to the LWO. Mr Adler has to repeat himself, from the same article that Hoffer had just quoted, that the Skinny Pancake offered the same thing the other 2 businesses did. Did Mr Hoffer even read that indisputable fact in the Skinny Pancake’s post? That’s a statement of fact and not opinion. Why is Mr Hoffer making points based off of untruths? I admire the LWO ideal as much as the next person does, but we all have to operate with real math and real facts and it’s alarming that the State Auditor has made so little effort to do so.
It continues… Mr. Hoffer suggests that the “monopoly” the Skinny Pancake has affects this calculation. I’m sure in their forecasting, the airport and the Skinny Pancake assumed they had a monopoly. If they didn’t have one, they would have forecasted less revenue. I’m sure they assumed they didn’t have to advertise as much, and that whatever the normal advertising margin is is greatly reduced. If the folks at the Skinny Pancake are smart business people, which their track record shows them to be, they took these obvious steps. So that point from Mr. Hoffer couldn’t be any less relevant. The fact that Mr Hoffer thought it to be relevant in any way suggests he doesn’t understand what goes into a business plan or forecast, which again, displays an alarming misunderstanding of business and money management for someone elected to a position like his.
I for one find it alarming that someone in a position of State Auditor could make such basic math errors, have such total misunderstanding of how any organization manages its costs, and have such a clear bias. The concept of margins isn’t specific to the restaurant business, folks, it’s how all business works: miss your margins, you go in the red, and you go out of business. Does Mr Hoffer put any import to the concept that if a business is in the red it will go out of business and everybody will lose their jobs?
Mr. Hoffer has a very long way to go to suggest that he is friendly to small business with comments like this. That the Skinny Pancake is the victim of this, and that an elected official is perpetuating the bashing against them is just an atrocity. Having high-minded ideals doesn’t divorce you from the responsibility of operating within the realm of reality. For someone with the credibility of State Auditor to be peddling such misunderstanding and untruth is unfair to the Skinny Pancake and goes a long way toward explaining why Vermont has a reputation as not being business friendly.
http://www.bizstats.com/corpor…
People might find average food and drinking establishment financial metrics interesting when comparing the numbers in the comment thread. I have posted a link to slightly dated metrics taken from IRS tax forms
Kudos to most of the participants in the comment section for facts and figures along with civil discourse
I should correct for the record that the last response was not from Mr. Hoffer it was from someone else and I didn’t realize that. My apologies, I haven’t used this forum before.
I love Vermont
This is truly an important- and seldom heard- debate. Huge thanks to Benjy and Doug, neither of whom need to be publicly engaging in this, and both of whom are clearly thoughtful, well-meaning and intelligent people.
I’m definitely no expert on restaurant biz costs, and I know way less about leasing airport space, but I’ll bet the real issue here is not labor costs, but rent.
(Lots of low-paying jobs in VT, made lower-paying by abnormally high rent and housing costs.)
Let’s face it – the airport location ain’t all that.
The BTV is not JFK. 1) I want a meal before I take off? Off airport is way way easier than a typical metro airport. Want a meal when you land? Meet your friend/business associate, chat while you wait on your luggage, figure out where you want to eat, and you’re there in 10-15 minutes from the time you picked up your bag. 2) Or eat at home! 3) Lots of easy-to-get to good restaurants close enough to the airport. 4) BTV is not a hub – you get off your plane and go home, you get on and go away, often to another airport, where you can stuff your face if your connection isn’t too tight. 5) No reason to hang around the BTV airport, no real lounge area, etc.. 6) Air travelers are sensitive to prices at the airport. The Philly airport is a pain in the ass to negotiate, but the concessions and restaurants are a good deal cheaper, and I know other travelers that have noticed this, too. (The Philly airport management charges lower rent than most for an agreement to charge street prices). I’ll eat there on my way in and out of BTV, but not at any of the other connecting airports if I can help it.
(The restaurant biz is extremely competitive with very tight margins. A chain like Dunkin Donuts can run a location at a loss or at break-even for goodwill advertising or in the hopes that the traffic will grow, but SP is not in that league.)
Unlike people like The Donald (also classified as a small-business owner by our mutual uncle), Mr. Adler is, indeed, a small-business owner, and SP is a small business. Sounds like he’s less than halfway to a 6-figure income, and the restaurant biz isn’t bankers’ hours.
And, while the Donald is a fervent evangelizer for assholism, Mr. Adler is an advocate of something else – local food, etc. He wants the airport location to showcase local food, I believe him, even if he is a dirty capitalist. 😉 (The argument against $15 burgers makes sense to me). The state has double and triple-downed on foodie and localvore and green, and so has the Burlington area. My feeling is that a SP shouldn’t have to go head-to-head with a Dunkin Donuts or similar company when it comes to a lease.
Not that the city should put money in Mr. Adler’s pockets – au contraire, make sure he pays the best wages. That’s also something VT stands for.
In summary, the concession should not have been on the LWO, it should have been on the lease/rent.
There’s something in the air in Vermont – an “oh well” when it comes to ridiculous rent. It plagues workers and true small businesses alike. Mr. Adler, you’ve given yourself a big nut to crack…
I do wish you luck!