UPDATE Tuesday April 8: From Allen Gilbert via email: Testimony on the Taser regulation bill (H.225) has been scheduled for tomorrow (Wednesday) in the Senate Government Operations Committee. […] If you haven't already contacted the five senators by email or other means, please do so within the next 24 hours. [See below for names and contact info. ~ NanuqFC]

In the debate over the use of Tasers one of the claims made by Taser proponents is that the use of Tasers saves police departments money because their people are less likely to be injured, and that as a consequence they save money on their workers' comp premiums.

One might be forgiven for questioning whether the cost savings justify the severe injuries and fatalities suffered by people injured by Tasers, but there's more to the story.

A report just completed by the Vermont chapter of the ACLU demonstrates that Vermont's taxpayers are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for the improper police deployment of Tasers.

Here's the report, reprinted, of course, by permission.

 Police Abuse Of Tasers Costs State Over $250,000

The total keeps growing the deeper we dig into police records. State government and local towns have paid out $269,500 since 2006 in seven different lawsuits alleging Taser abuse by Vermont police.

If the bill that's passed the House and is now in the Senate becomes law, the lawsuits will likely continue. That's because the House bill codifies the existing Taser deployment standard — a standard that allows police to use the powerful weapons on anybody “actively resisting” an officer. “Active resistance” includes a subject crossing his arms over his chest, or even protestors who have chained themselves to a barrel and refuse to move. No immediate threat to anyone's safety is needed to justify a 50,000-volt shock.

We'll be fighting in the Senate for a new standard — a standard that says Tasers should only be used to reduce an immediate threat of serious injury or expected death to a subject or others. We'll also be fighting for measurement and calibration of Tasers' electrical charge; that's crucial to the weapons' safer operation but isn't currently required. We also want officers to carry cameras when they carry Tasers; even Taser International's CEO says cameras can reduce abuse. Finally, we want civilian review of incidents involving Tasers. Internal reviews don't bring the impartiality and objectivity that independent panels do.

The bill is now in the Senate Government Operations Committee. If you know any of the committee members, send them an e-mail. Tell them you want a Taser bill that stops the abuses that so far have cost the state over a quarter million dollars — as well as the death of a disturbed, epileptic man, and unnecessary injuries to others. Mention the need for calibration, cameras, and civilian review, too.  

• Sen. Jeanette White, committee chair
• Sen. Anthony Pollina, vice chair
• Sen. Claire Ayer
• Sen. Eldred French
• Sen. Norm McAllister

For more information on Tasers and their use, navigate to our Taser research series:

• “Lawful But Awful” Taser Cases
• $269,500 Paid Out In Taser Abuse Cases
• Letter To House Government Operations Committee Chair Rep. Donna Sweaney objecting to House makeover of H. 225
• H. 225 as introduced
• H. 225 as passed the House

Thank you to Allen Gilbert and the ACLU-Vt. for carrying on this fight! 

In the aftermath of this week’s Supreme Court decision, unleashing an unlimited flow of cash and influence on our political system, the concerns of Vermont State Auditor Doug Hoffer that “whistleblowers” be insulated against reprisals, gain particular prescience.

It is no secret that Hoffer is held in high regard amongst the admins and regulars on GMD; and this is an example of why.

Hoffer joins Jed Guertin and others in asking lawmakers to strengthen the protections for individuals who bring to light wrongdoing in their government workplace.

Guertin was a computer systems specialist at what was then (1994) the Department of Travel and Tourism. Guertin’s supervisor had sought to steer a valuable software contract toward a firm that had no business winning the bid…

Unable to solve the problem internally, Guertin blew the whistle publicly. And when his supervisor learned of his breach, Guertin quickly found himself frozen out at the government agency he’d spent 12 years climbing the ladder…(He) went on to win a small cash settlement for his treatment at the hands of his superiors – along with an official letter praising his accomplishments on behalf of the department

But the somewhat positive outcome for Guertin came at great personal cost, which would discourage most ordinary citizens from going down the same road to justice.

Recognizing the benefit to the state as a whole and to taxpayers in particular when workers have no fear of calling attention to corruption in governmental departments, Hoffer believes existing protections are insufficient and require reinforcement.  

“You don’t want people to think, ‘Oh, I have to hire a lawyer, and go through the process before I can just find some safe place and tell someone what I know,'” Hoffer says. “And that’s what I want to do, is create a safe place.”

Legislation that would protect whistleblower’s anonymity is currently making its way from the Vermont House to the Senate. The Vermont ACLU has questions about possible impacts of that legislation on open government.  

It’s not a simple issue, on either side of the fence, but now is the time to endeavor to get it right.  

On Capitol Hill, the floodgates of corruption are about to be opened and it won’t take long for that trickle-down to reach Vermont.

Man shot dead during execution of drug-related search warrant

By DOMENIC POLI / Reformer Staff

Posted:   04/04/2014 08:42:18 AM EDT1 Comment | Updated: 41 min ago [as of 310pm]

BRATTLEBORO — A man was shot dead by police Friday morning as authorities attempted to execute a court-ordered search warrant in Room 301 at the America’s Best Inn at 959 Putney Road.

According to Vermont State Police, the search warrant was obtained as part of an on-going drug investigation and, during the initial entry of the room, a Brattleboro Police officer fired his weapon and struck the man at roughly 5:40 a.m.

http://www.reformer.com/ci_254…

“Rollin’ Stone…

says Vermont’s

got more heroin

than the whole damn

nation

“Rollin’ Stone…

says Vermont’s

the place to go

if ya wanna ‘snow’ vacation

“Bill Sorrell…

was he takin’ money

or just nappin’?

“Sorrell ain’t IN the article?

Oh, that’s the U.S. Attorney General

in the article?



“But…what about

Bill Sorrell?…

“Is Vermont gonna

wind up next

in The New Yawka?

“17 years…



“Heroin…

“For 17 years…”

When…OH WHEN!..and what has to happen now, for you Little Dems to demand ANSWERS from your Little Dem AG about HIS ‘culpability’ is in this OUTRAGE IN VERMONT?!

I will say it for you:  17 Years!  For the last 17 years, under Bill Sorrell’s watch, HEROIN trafficking and use has been growing by leaps and bounds in Vermont.  But, in the last 17 years, Bill Sorrell’s biggest issue has been SODA!

Not HEROIN–SODA!

Not hundreds off cases still open on abuse of the elderly and disabled–SODA!

Not abuse of migrant and immigrant workers’ rights–SODA!

Not a possible pipeline that traffics missing young girls through Vermont--FUCKING SODA!!!

What Vermonters should be OUTRAGED about is that CORRUPTION OF A PERSON who now holds–and for 17 years! has held–the office of Vermont Attorney General!  Not the defamation of a container of Vermont Maple Syrup!

HELLO BILL!  I say you are one sleazy piece of work!  I go so far as to say that YOU are the ONE who put VERMONT in ROLLING STONE.  Because I believe YOU have been CRIMINALLY negligent, or, perhaps, CRIMINALLY ASSOCIATED with this growing Heroin problem for the last…what was that, Peter?…oh yeah…17 YEARS!

HELLO???   Any comment from the Office of Vermont Attorney General?  There ought to be.  Shhh…listen…hear that?…it’s so quiet…yeah, too quiet…must be folks are zoned-out…yeah…well…maybe soon the gunfire in the streets will wake them.

Maybe?  Nah…

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vermont (‘Snow’ Capital of the EAST)

So much for the infallibility of the founding fathers.

Today’s Supreme Court decision on campaign finance pretty much makes a mockery of our democratic illusions, and in so doing, points the finger of blame directly at our most sacrosanct document: the U.S. Constitution.

We are now at an extremely dangerous juncture.  There is no precedent for a new Constitutional Convention, but perhaps that is what should have been planned for in the original framing.

It is doubtful that, in the spirit of newborn patriotism, the founders could have imagined a country at once so big and so polarized as is the case today.

Frankly, I am not optimistic about the future of U.S. democracy if it remains chained to the unravelling precedents set by this Supreme Court.

It remains to be seen whether the American people will allow themselves to be bamboozled by a cash-fired media blitz into supporting a party so fundamentally opposed to their best interests as is today’s Republican party; but we will get the chance to see, in short order.

The Republicans are counting on stupidity and disengagement to win the day for them; and they just may be right. There are clear indications that they have become emboldened in their scorn for the working man by successes through gerrymandering and packing the bench.

When before has anyone had the temerity to publicly suggest that rich people ought to get more votes?

I have heard over and over again that the amendments to the Constitution collectively known as the “Bill of Rights” should be unassailable.  But the rigidity of that position now threatens the underlying democratic principles that are even closer to the core of who we are as a nation.

If we are unable to adapt to the times by bending the Constitution to serve those democratic principles; we will simply snap from the strain.

Our political leaders are bought and paid for by the highest bidder.  Our middle class has all but disappeared and the vast underclass has been plunged deeper into poverty; but it’s never been better on Wall Street.  

Gun violence has provoked an irrational response, stoked by corporate and political cynicsm.  The availability of firearms has grown exponentially, concentrating them in the hands of the overheated.

Some might say that we are ripe for a revolution, if those whose hands hold the throttle don’t apply the brakes pretty soon.

But like Climate Change, the will simply isn’t there and it may already be too late.

It was a good run while it lasted.

We've said this before, but I really have to ask where is the fight in Obama?

 The issue this time is the trial balloon they've launched that they might release convicted spy Jonathan Pollard.

Pollard is a bad guy. He's serving a life sentence for selling American military secrets to Israel, secrets that found their way to the KGB in short order. As reported in Slate: The information Pollard gave to Israel included technical details of U.S. spy satellites and highly classified information about how the U.S. intercepted Soviet communications.

For years he's had supporters agitating to get him released, and now Obama is talking about turning him over for some kind of illusory promise by Netanyahu.

Not only is Pollard bad, what we're going to get for rolling over for Netanyahu is almost precisely nothing.  Or, to be a little more specific, what Obama gets in the deal is Netanyahu sitting at the table pretending to negotiate in good faith for another year or so.

 As usual, Josh Marshall has it right. If it's inevitable that Pollard will be released, the only time it should ever happen is if we get something really, really big for it. Like a comprehensive agreement. Pollard's release might be the biggest thing Netanyahu wants from Obama (except for getting him defeated, which he tried to do in 2012), so once Netanyahu gets Pollard back there's nothing left to give.

So when Netanyahu once again says he's not giving anything, and not stopping the illegal settlements, and we need to do something to persuade him to negotiate honestly, what's left?

 Here's how to contact the White House. 

 Call the President

PHONE NUMBERS

Comments: 202-456-1111

Switchboard: 202-456-1414

TTY/TTD

Comments: 202-456-6213

 Call them today and tell them not to release Jonathan Pollard.

A terrible bill – and at this moment, inchoate.

Why inchoate? Because as currently amended and being considered by the House, S.91 neither conforms to nor addresses its stated purpose, as introduced last session.

Date: February 8, 2013

Subject: Education; independent schools; public funds; tuition; special education:

This bill proposes to require that in order to receive publicly funded tuition dollars, an independent school shall be approved for special education in at least four categories and shall arrange for the provision of services in any other category, shall maintain a “blind admissions policy” for all publicly funded students, and shall meet other specific requirements.

Sections 1-4 followed, delimiting the conditions under which an independent school could receive, or continue to receive, public monies (in the form of school district tuitions), covering such concerns as bias-free enrollment, blind admission, provision made for four categories of special education, provision for free- or reduced-lunches, and the requirement that faculty and administration hold state licensure.

In the amended version, all four of these sections have been stricken, and following substituted:

Sec. 1. PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS; MORATORIUM; REPEAL

(a) Privatization of public school. Notwithstanding the authority of a school district to cease operating an elementary or secondary school and to begin paying tuition on behalf of its resident students, a school district shall not cease operation of a school with the intention, for the purpose, or with the

result of having the school building or buildings reopen as an approved independent school serving essentially the same population of students. [emphasis added]

Subsections (b) and (c) direct the State Board of Education not to approve such an independent school, under these circumstances exclusively, and asserts that such a school shall be ineligible to receive any publicly funded tuitions. Further, the Secretary of Education is directed to determine the constitutionality either of allowing or prohibiting such an action. The act is to take effect on passage.

The result is that S.91, rather than addressing concerns that independent schools like St. Johnsbury Academy, Sharon Academy, Burr & Burton Academy inter alia conform to the conditions outlined in the original bill in order to be eligible to receive public tuitions, now addresses implicitly the situation at the North Bennington Graded School District.

Last summer, the North Bennington board officially decided to close its public school and lease the building to the independent Village School of North Bennington, which the board was given authority to do by voters and supported fully itself. In so doing, faculty, administration, student body, special services, and physical plant were all preserved intact. The North Bennington board and voters had concluded that independence was the optimal — if not the only — way to sustain a school that has felt the pains of ever-increasing costs, even as enrollment has declined in recent years. Like many other schools throughout the state. The board believed the independent model to be more sustainable because of its ability to attract tuitioning children from out-of-district and to privately fundraise. (http://www.nbgsonline.org/)

Note that NBGS as currently configured satisfies all four of the original stipulations concerning independent schools and public funding. Although none of those stipulations exist in S.91 as amended.

So what exactly is the purpose of S.91 at this point? Besides summarily forbidding an action that any number of other school districts in the state may contemplate, should NBGS’s experiment prove successful?

If ever there was an editorial that sums up the destructive potential of a Republican controlled Congress it is this that appears in today’s New York Times.   It should get as wide circulation as possible, so I am doing my bit to bring it to our GMD readership, who will vote, so they can pass it along to their friends, who might not .

Bullet point by bullet point, it itemizes the ways in which Paul Ryan’s budget plan would destroy the economy while brutalizing the poor and taking a final wrecking ball to the middle class.

As disappointed as progressives may be with the Democrats’ failure to deliver on many of the expectations that carried Obama to the White House, this is no time to throw in the towel and not show up to vote.

It is predicted that a characteristic lack of voting enthusiasm on the part of Democrats and liberals in general may very well carry Republicans to control of the Senate as well as the House.  

How can we let that happen in a country that, according to most polls, has a majority who disagree with Republicans on almost every issue?  

It is highly unlikely that a Republican will be elected president in 2016; but with a Republican controlled Congress, for all intents and purposes, the majority of Americans will have, essentially, no representation on the Hill.  

A Democratic president will be powerless to affect policy initiatives other than by executive order, which amounts to fiat.  This is the stuff that banana republics are known for; and it doesn’t ever end well.

We may find ourselves having more in common with the failed nation states in whose dissolutions we routinely meddle than with the model of democracy we hold ourselves to be.

As the Times editorial observes:

Mr. Ryan hopes to be promoted to the helm of the Ways and Means Committee now that its chairman, Dave Camp, has announced his retirement. That would put a man with very dangerous ideas in a position to do serious damage to the tax code and the safety net, which Ways and Means controls. His budget is mostly an exercise in grandstanding right now, but, in a short time, it could become a pathway to something far worse.

If the mid-term elections hand the Senate over to the Republicans there will be nothing to stop them from delivering the entire country to the radical right who have bought and paid for that privilege.

At least for now, the formula is still one citizen = one vote.

This is no time to say “what’s the difference?” and abandon the ballot box!  

We’ll find out what the difference is!

(Good one! – promoted by Sue Prent)

(cross-posted from Vermont Watch, here; also cross-posted to iBrattleboro, here)

Although one is left to wonder about whether or not it is merely fool’s gold or the real thing, there have been recent rumors about how, on condition of anonymity, a top administration official is reported to have disclosed that Governor Peter Shumlin‘s plan to fund his single payer health care initiative could potentially include instituting taxes on what currently is non-taxable food and clothing purchases.

This would be in addition to considering the potential legalization and taxation of marijuana distribution and sales within the state.

While it is true that, no matter how great or noble the cause might have been in need of state funding, Governor Shumlin has usually been sternly opposed to raising what he terms as being broad-based taxes; it has been noted by others on occasion about how, nonetheless, he has in certain cases previously supported what could easily be termed broad-based taxes.

The same unnamed administration official is said to have reported that, if need be however, the Governor is also open to funding his single payer health care initiative partially through the creation of a state bank as well as further requesting the state legislature consider granting the State of Vermont authority to print and issue its own financial currency (read: money).

Having the ability to print and issue its own financial currency would provide the state with the added benefit of helping to pay for the various elements of the state’s ambitious mental health plan and its several progressive initiatives (per Act 79; circa: 2012), including those costs associated with both building as well as the annual operation of the Shumlin State Hospital in Berlin, which the administration hopes to have opened and operating sometime during the coming Summer months.

While meetings concerning these as well as related matters are more than likely being held in strictest secrecy, as appears to be all too commonplace for this administration and then only at the highest levels of state government, discussions are rumored to have already been well underway about whose faces would adorn the various denominations for paper currency and coinage.

Among the steps reported to be required prior to Vermont being legally allowed to print and issue its own financial currency is for the state to secede from its union with the United States of America and once again become an independent republic (in becoming its own freestanding nation, it is possible this might even make Vermont eligible to receive foreign aid from the U.S.A. as well as Canada and so on).

One of the problems with these type of scenarios, however, is the fact that many of those known to be most fervently in favor of secession are said to also be strongly opposed to most, if not all, government taxation, or at least when it comes to using tax revenues for certain purposes; especially for funding any programs or services and the like that they believe should be funded through either the engines of a free market economic system or private charitable efforts instead, not through public funding (read: taxpayer funded) sources whatsoever.

This could therefore prove to be just one of many stumbling blocks in going forward in these regards.

In other news, a proclamation was said to have recently been signed by Governor Shumlin declaring April 1st to, henceforth, be an official state holiday.

Afterwards, a joint resolution was reported to have been adopted by both bodies of the Vermont General Assembly that named this new holiday Peter Shumlin Day.

Happy Peter Shumlin er, April Fools Day!

The people of Franklin County should have the choice to send a truly progressive voice to Montpelier.  At the very least, they deserve the opportunity to weigh it against other contenders.

After serious consideration and with the full consent of my family, I have decided to offer myself as a candidate for the Vermont Senate.

This seems particularly fitting, since my next door neighbor, Republican Dustin Degree, has also announced his candidacy.  Perhaps we can arrange some front porch debates, inviting the two sitting senators to pull up a rocker and join us.

My platform will include legalization and regulation of recreational marijuana, rapid progress toward a single payer model for healthcare in Vermont, strengthening citizen access in the permit system; a more progressive tax structure so that the wealthiest Vermonters may enjoy the privilege of helping their less fortunate neighbors; routine increases in the minimum wage to track the cost of living; paid sick leave to improve worker health and morale; and protection for shoreline ecosystems.  I will also advocate for a statewide vision to link communities across the state and reduce emissions through public transportation corridors for bus and rail.  

Number one on my list of personal priorities will be a tireless effort to see effective conflict of interest policy adopted at the state level in the hope that this will influence municipalities to do likewise.

And while we’re at it, how about trying to return female prisoners to the St. Albans facility that was especially modified to accommodate their needs and those of their children before the women were abruptly switched-out so that the facility could house male prisoners?

I certainly don’t claim to have all the answers, but I have a heck of a lot of questions!

I am sure there will be plenty to talk about and hope that I can look forward to monthly public forums with the other senate candidates.

Fasten your seatbelts, fellas; it’s gonna be a bumpy ride!