Cross posted from Rational Resistance. 

It's Labor Day, that holiday established to honor America's working men and women, and particularly organized labor, the heroes who fought and died for the forty-hour week, the eight-hour day, employee benefits, and the right to organize. You could be forgiven for thinking it's just the holiday that marks the end of summer, but you'd be wrong.

Still, tonight, after the burgers are eaten, the beers have been drunk, and the grill is put away,you might be thinking about football. After all, it's fall and that's what fall is for, right? As you plan out your NFL viewing schedule for the season, I have a suggestion for you: Don't.

That's right, join with me right now and agree that you won't watch a single NFL game, in person or on television, as long as they're using scab officials.

You may have forgotten, but the NFL has locked out its workers, in this case the officials, and has hired scabs from the low minors (like not NCAA Division I, the real NFL minor league), going down as far as the Lingerie Football League, to save each team $6,000 a game. (Never heard of the Lingerie Football League? Uniforms consist of shoulder pads, elbow pads, knee pads, garters, bras, panties, and ice hockey-style helmets with clear plastic visors in lieu of face masks.)

Anyway, from the evidence available so far, apparently the scabs aren't very good, even compared to the scabs the NFL hired in 2001. Laughably bad, as in the broadcasters are literally laughing at the calls. So bad, in fact, that people, including the NFL players' union, are worried that they won't be able to keep the games safe for the players, and the players' union is considering a strike.

I don't care about football, and I won't be watching any of these games anyway, but I do care about workers' rights.

If you care about the quality of the football games you watch, or about the rights of the workers who are entitled by law to organize to negotiate for wages, hours, and working conditions, though, you should care about this lockout, and maybe you should decide that you're not watching scabs.

As I was reading the Free Press obituaries the other morning I came across this one:

ALTHEA PRZYBYLO KROGER – BURLINGTON – Althea Przybylo Kroger, 65, passed away at Vermont Respite House on Aug. 30, 2012, after a courageous battle with lung cancer.

She hasn't been in the public eye in many years, but readers who recognize the name probably go right to their memories of a bizarre episode in Vermont legal history, in which both Althea Kroger and Elizabeth Gretkowski, who were both serving as Chittenden County side judges, were disciplined by the Vermont Supreme Court for  engaging in conduct which undermined public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and brought the office of assistant judge into disrespect.

 The story of a feud between two elected judges included claims of judges refusing to take required actions to make sure the court was able to function, allegations and cross-allegations of false and misleading public statements, claims, some of which were established, of secret taping of conversations, and even stuff like occult spiritual practices and spells to protect against evil spirits (I don't remember the details, but trust me when I say I'm not making that up).

It was altogether a bizarre and discreditable series of events.

My point, though, is to say that if this is all anyone remembers of Althea Kroger they would be making a mistake, because before and after she went badly off the rails as a side judge she also did a great deal of good.

I worked closely with Althea when she was serving in the State Senate, and she was a strong and consistent voice for tenants' rights in the Senate General Affairs and Housing Committee.

From the obituary:

 As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, and later the House Appropriations Committee, Althea was a strong supporter of open government, increasing state assistance to lowincome people and the elderly, and increasing mental health, special education and higher education funding. She proposed a bill to strengthen the Lobbyist Disclosure Law. She supported budget increases for Vermont Aid to Needy Families with Children. She introduced legislation to permit property tax relief for senior citizens. She supported the Independence Fund, an alternative to nursing home care. Other major legislative efforts included co-sponsoring a bill to outlaw corporal punishment in school. She also researched and led the fight to pass a living will bill, which allows anyone over the age of 18 years to designate end-of-life measures.

. . .

  Following law school, she served two terms in the Vermont Senate. Althea continued making issues her priority during her four years as a Vermont Senator. She sponsored successful legislation that increased funds for affordable housing, required insurance coverage for mammograms, prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public places, and allowed workers to take unpaid family leave. She was Chair of the Conference Committee that passed legislation that allowed Burlington to use its waterfront lands for arts education and cultural activities, water research and dining facilities. As a Senator, she received awards for State House Distinguished Service from the Vermont Dietetic Association and an appreciation award from the Vermont Sheriff's Association.

. . .

  She also was the founder and first Executive Director of the Vermont Bar Foundation, which was established to oversee and distribute funds from lawyers' interest-bearing escrow accounts. Later as a Senator, she proposed legislation to use funds in interest-bearing real-estate escrow accounts for affordable housing. A central priority in Althea's political life was advancing the cause of women in society. She was a member of the Essex League of Women Voters and served as Voter Service Chair, helping women get elected. She researched and wrote her master's thesis on women in politics. She was producer and host of 80 one-half-hour TV interview programs, called Vermont Women, broadcast on Vermont's Adelphia Cable channel 15, from 1990-1994. This program highlighted individual Vermont women and their contributions to society, and included three award winning programs, recognized by NEWC, New English Women in Cable, Boston, Mass. She organized and coordinated the successful effort to pass an amendment to the Vermont State Constitution to rewrite the Constitution in gender neutral language.

 I didn't follow her career after she left the Legislature, but she continued to be active in education, women's empowerment, and helping others. 

 I encourage you to read the entire obituary, and to recall that, as with most of us, it would be unfair to base your judgment on what may have been the worst period of her public life, ignoring the good she did for many.

What: RALLY IN SUPPORT OF DISTRICT HEAT

When: Wednesday, August 29that 12:30 pm

Where: Montpelier City Hall

Who:

·         Angela Timpone, Montpelier City Council Member (District 3)

·         Anne Watson, Newly Appointed Montpelier City Council Member (District 2)

·         Becky Wigg, Montpelier Energy Advisory Committee

·         Justin McCabe, Montpelier Energy Advisory Committee

·         John Snell, Partner, The Snell Group

·         Ben Walsh, VPIRG Clean Energy Advocate

·         Johanna Miller, Vermont Natural Resources Council

Visuals:

Dozens of Montpelier residents with signs.

In addition, according to a press release this afternoon:

Mayor John Hollar has called a special meeting of the Montpelier City Council for 6:30 PM on Wednesday, August 29 in the City Council Chambers at Montpelier City Hall to consider revisions to the agreement between the City of Montpelier and the State of Vermont regarding the District Heat project.

The Council will be asked to approve the project with changes that are intended to address concerns raised by City Council Members.  Secretary of Administration Jeb Spaulding has agreed to these terms on behalf of the State of Vermont.

Under the revised agreement, the city will commit to building the first phase of the distribution system to, at a minimum, the corner of State and Elm streets.  It is the expectation of the city and state that funding will allow for the completion of all other phases of the project.  The final determination of project size will be made after construction bids are received in November.

The revised agreement provides that certain charges to the state will be phased in based on actual usage by city customers.  That will replace an earlier agreement which provided for the payment of a fixed annual charge by the city regardless of the amount of city heat usage.  The state will have the ability to use any capacity that is not purchased by the city, after a reasonable period of time.

The city and state will work cooperatively towards the creation of a financially independent entity that would own or operate the distribution system.

This plan, if approved by the Council, will allow the State to proceed with ordering two 600 horsepower boilers in time to meet construction deadlines.   The City will be able to proceed with its bid process and make final financial decisions based on actual pricing rather than cost estimates.

District heat supporters are encouraged to turn out at the special City Council meeting to show our support for this visionary and innovative plan.

That's the name of the game, folks.

Polls close in about an hour. I hope you've already voted, but if not you still have time.

We're open for local election updates or observations as you have them. Feel free to post comments, and I'll periodically bump this thread to keep it on top.

Monitor the votes as reported and recorded at the Secretary of State's website HERE. The SoS site not only records the votes, but will show you a map of where the ballots have been counted.

This is Mayor John Hollar’s report to the voters of Montpelier on the current status of the district heating plan. It’s being reposted with his permission.

Anyone who is concerned for the future of sustainable energy in the capital city is encourage to call the city councilors who voted against the project to ask them to support the project.

At its meeting on August 22, the Montpelier City Council voted 2-4 to withdraw from participation with the state in the district heat project.  I was deeply disappointed in that vote.  I want to share my thoughts on the project, including where things stand and where we go from here.

I have strongly supported the district heat project since its inception, although I have approached it from a practical perspective since becoming mayor in March.  The project provides numerous environmental and societal benefits, but I believe it must stand on sound financial footing.  I made clear to city staff in March that I would only support the project if we could demonstrate a solid economic case for continuing.

Since March, City Manager Bill Fraser and many other city staff have worked diligently to close a $1 million funding gap by expanding the customer base.  As of last week, the city has received commitments from Vermont Mutual Insurance Company, the General Services Administration (Post Office building), the County government and several large private property owners.  The school district has committed to including Union Elementary School.  Each of these users have independently evaluated the economics of the project and have concluded that it would provide value.  Many other users have expressed interest in the project and are likely to sign up if the city commits to moving forward.

As presented to the City Council, the project has a funding safety net $1,127,986, or 34.30%.  Moreover, the city could segment the project to reduce costs if needed.  These contingencies provide a substantial cushion in the event that project bids exceed current estimates.  While all projects have risks, the likelihood that costs will exceed revenues appears to be extraordinarily small.

The benefits of the project are well-known and obvious:

It would allow our community to minimize its dependence on fossil fuels for heating;

It would provide an economical and stable source of heat for decades to come;

It would rely on a local fuel source, further minimizing environmental impacts and providing broader economic benefits.

The Council members who voted against the project have expressed three primary objections:

The economic risks to the city are too great, since we will not know our actual costs until we receive bids in November;

the city has not demonstrated an ability to maintain its existing infrastructure; and

the state has not been a good partner in the project.

I am working with these councilors and the state to address these concerns.  I am hopeful that we will reach a solution that allows the project to go forward as planned.

For those wanting to learn more about this project, please visit the City’s web site, and read the City Manager’s excellent report to the council on August 22, 2012.    

You've undoubtedly heard that the Montpelier City Council voted 4-2 Wednesday night to abandon the district heating plan that Montpelier city government has been working on for the past nine years. The vote count is important, because if there had been one more “yes” vote Mayor John Hollar would have voted yes to break the tie.

This is a call for all Montpelier voters to contact their city councilors and urge them to reconsider this vote, hold another meeting, and vote to go forward with this visionary plan.

There is a lot of information available about the plan, but to me some of the key points are:

1. The plan will not add to the city budget. Funding comes from an $8,000,000 federal grant and money the city is already budgeting for heating oil.

2. True, we don't know the precise cost for fuel and operating costs over the years, but we can say with confidence that fuel oil will continue to go up. This is a plan that protects Montpelier against future price shocks.

3. The new district heating plan is good for economic development. Many downtown property owners have already expressed interest in getting their heat from the plant, and the price stability that the plant will provide will be good for downtown businesses.

4. Montpelier voters have strongly supported this plan every time it has been put to a vote. Reconsidering the council's decision and moving ahead supports local democracy.

5. The plant supports local workers and wood chip providers. Why should we be spending our fuel dollars overseas when we can spend them right here in Vermont?

If you want to learn more here's an excellent source of information.

Please contact your city councilor and ask him to change his vote on district energy:

 Andy Hooper (District 1), 8 Winter Street, 229-1237, thooper@montpelier-vt.org

Tom Golonka (District 1), 64 Meadowbrook Drive, 223-3657, tgolonka@montpelier-vt.org

Thierry (pronounced “Terry”) Guerlain (District 2), 15 McKinley Street, 229-5686, tguerlain@montpelier-vt.org

Alan Weiss (District 3), 205 Forest Drive – Unit #1, 229-0068, aweiss@montpelier-vt.org

There are a couple of interesting developments in the AG's race today, both in the Burlington Free Press.

 First is the endorsement. Following the lead of the St. Albans Messenger, Stowe Reporter, and Waterbury Reporter, the Free Press endorsed TJ Donovan.

The question is, where has Sorrell, the engaged campaigner, been all these years?

Former Gov. Howard Dean characterized the attorney generals’ primary as a choice between the challenger’s ambition vs. the incumbent’s experience.

Donovan’s ambition is built on his six years as Chittenden County state’s attorney, the county prosecutor.

Donovan presents an alternative to the comforts of incumbency.

Donovan will bring a new energy to the office.

The Free Press editorial board recommends T.J. Donovan in the Democratic primary for Vermont attorney general.

Especially coming in the face of a survey claiming that Sorrell has a huge lead over Donovan, one more endorsement from a major newspaper is a big deal. Which leads to the question: what is the Burlington Free Press talking about in its news pages? A couple of weeks ago we published a diary in which our message to the two candidates was:

Hey, guys: Stop whining. Sincerely, jv

The point was that they should stop all the nonsense about PAC coordination, absentee ballot bullshit, and everything else that really doesn't address the issues in the race. We were right.

So the biggest story in today's Free Press is all about PAC coordination, campaign finance, absentee ballot bullshit, and everything but the issues in the race. After exhaustively reviewing the minutiae of all these issues, the Free Press pretty much concludes that there's not much there, or at least no much definitive evidence on any one of these points.

Around here, that looks like the definition of “not a story”.

Just because it's what the candidates are talking about that doesn't mean they should get the platform to do it. Come on, Freeps! There are a few days left to talk about the issues.

Just a quick note here, because today's news brings something I wasn't really expecting: results of a survey before next Tuesday's primary. I was just talking about this with a friend this morning, and we agreed that they wouldn't do a poll and release it a week before the primary, but obviously we were wrong.

The headline is that the incumbents still have the advantage, and in the one contested primary Bill Sorrell still holds a comfortable lead,  44%-24%, over TJ Donovan.

If you look at the internals, though, you learn something more: that lead comes from a grand total of  223 registered voters. That's right, registered voters, not likely voters.

This is going to be a light turnout election, though, which means that GOTV is going to play a big role in what happens. Bill Sorrell is touting the results of this new poll, as well he might. On the other hand, the test next Tuesday is likely to come down to who has the better organization on the ground, and from here it seems that Donovan has the edge on organization.

We'll see soon enough.

Yesterday was my thirty-sixth wedding anniversary. Contrary to the male stereotype I've never forgotten it, and I bet most men haven't either.

I'm not trolling for compliments or congratulations; I've already gotten “likes” or good wishes from over a hundred people on Facebook, and I appreciate all of them.

I do want to point something out, though. The opponents of marriage equality say that we hate marriage, or we want to destroy it, and on the day I celebrate my anniversary I can say that nothing is farther from the truth. The truth is that supporters of marriage equality value marriage, probably more than the opponents. We value the support and strength that it gives us, and we can't see why other people shouldn't have the same chance.

 What we're talking about today is a quick look at one of the ads that Bill Sorrell has been running. It touts a number of Sorrell's accomplishments, and the latest ad leads with Sorrell's settlement with banks that were guilty of fraud in the mortgage foreclosure process, a settlement that brought millions of dollars into the state. This really was a big deal, with over two billion dollars being collected from the banks nationwide, and $6.8 million coming to Vermont.

 We know that the banks are paying a lot of money to state governments all over the country, and we also know where that money came from: defrauded homeowners. Consequently, you might think that the money should be returned to its rightful owners, the people the banks stole the money from, right?

Well, if you thought that that was what would happen you'd be wrong. According to a report by Pro Publica,  a huge majority of that money was collected by the states and just added to the states' general fund budgets.

 What about Vermont?

It's pretty much the same thing. Here's what Pro Publica says:

VERMONT

Total: $2,600,000

   It's not a bad thing to collect millions of dollars for Vermont's taxpayers, but you have to wonder if more of that money could have gone to help or defend people in foreclosures, don't you?

 There are some debates coming up this week. I know that the Attorney General doesn't decide how the money is spent once he collects it, the same way the police don't decide what to do with your money when you get a speeding ticket. Still, it might be a good thing if someone asked Bill Sorrell why more of that money didn't go to the homeowners, and how hard he fought to make sure it did.