All posts by jvwalt

A modest proposal

Cross-posted at Daily Kos.

In the wake of the Newtown shootings, we have lots of this:

The tragedy in Connecticut will convince communities across the country to cut other spending in favor of funding greater security measures, including adding armed guards at schools, said Peter Pochowski, the former executive director of the National Association of School Safety and Law Enforcement Officers.

Okay, then. In order to preserve the NRA’s sweeping claims of Second Amendment gun rights, our schools (and public buildings, and shopping malls, and mass-transit systems, and places of worship, and and and) will almost certainly feel compelled to add new security on top of the childhood-killing shit we’re already doing:

Since the Columbine shootings in Colorado, schools across the nation have increased security. Burlington schools hold lockdown drills and evacuation drills on a regular basis, and keep only one door open to the public.

And I’m old enough to remember “duck and cover” drills and the sense of dread they communicated.

Well, we seem unable to do much about gun ownership laws because politicians are completely cowed by the gun lobby. But if we do face increased social costs because anyone who wants an assault rifle can have one, then how about this: We figure out how much security our schools need, and how much it costs (for the stuff we’re already doing plus the new stuff), and create a security tax on gun sales?

The tax could be restricted to the most dangerous weapons — anything with rapid-fire capability, cop-killer ammunition, etc. — if you’re concerned about placing a burden on someone who just wants a handgun or standard hunting weapons. But the tax should be high enough to hold our schools (and malls and buses and subways and churches) harmless for security costs.

Fair enough? All we’re doing is correcting a flaw in the market: assigning the true costs of gun ownership where they belong.  

If not now, when?

On Friday I posted two diaries addressing, in different ways, the financial difficulties Vermont is facing. We have an extremely tight budget situation, and a number of problems that need to be faced — some requiring large investments of money.

Meanwhile, Governor Shumlin has restated his staunch opposition to increases in taxes he defines as “broad-based.” Vermont Press Bureau:

If Democrats can abide his no-new-taxes pledge now, Shumlin said, then they’ll earn the electoral trust they’ll need to proceed with single-payer health care in 2017.



“That sets the foundation, builds the confidence and gives us the support of Vermonters that allows us to do the others things that I say other states don’t dare do,” Shumlin said.

When I first read this, I thought it was reasonable: the Administration is making bold plans for a single-payer health care system, and if it establishes a reputation for fiscal probity, the voters are more likely to trust Shumlin’s management and less likely to believe shrill opposition from the likes of Vermonter(s) First.  

But an article in Friday’s Times Argus made me think again. The Vermont Press Bureau’s Peter Hirschfeld reported that the Legislature has no plans to consider broadening the sales tax to include services as well as goods. The idea was bruited about last spring, but when it became a focal point of Vermonter(s) First’s blitzkrieg of attack ads, that early enthusiasm quickly evaporated.

And then it hit me: those attack ads didn’t work.

Vermonter(s) First spent almost a million bucks of Lenore Broughton’s money, and made nary a dent in the 2012 election. The Democrats cemented their hold on state government.

What’s more, the chair of the Vermont GOP has all but written off the 2014 election; Jack Lindley has said it will take at least two full election cycles to rebuild a competitive Republican Party.

So what are the Democrats afraid of?

After the jump: a unique opportunity for political boldness.

Vermont does face big challenges. But Vermont Democrats have a huge amount of political capital, and won’t face a serious threat anytime soon.

If ever there was an opportunity to go big, this is it. The Governor has gone big on health care reform, and he deserves full credit for that. He’s also pushing hard for renewables and energy efficiency. But given the strength of his position, there is room for more boldness. He’s got the power, and if the initiatives don’t have an immediate payoff, he’s got the time. This is a tremendous opportunity to put Vermont on a new course to solve our problems and create a better state.

I don’t know exactly which initiatives should be undertaken. But if the sales tax needs fixing, why not fix it? Why not find new ways to pay for infrastructure investments?

Why not, as regular commenter Minor Heretic says, take up Tony Pollina’s proposal for a Vermont state bank?

The initiatives need to be well thought-out and carefully chosen. But there’s no reason to think they wouldn’t be, given the experience and expertise in his cabinet, plus the financial know-how in the Treasurer’s and Auditor’s offices.

We’ve only heard pieces of the Governor’s plans for his second term, and it’s quite possible that a wide-ranging and ambitious agenda is already in the pipeline. I sure hope so. Because if Democrats operate out of fear, as they seem to be on sales tax reform, we will miss a golden opportunity to turn our problems into opportunities.  

Everywhere you go it’s the same cry

I don’t know if it’s the fact that the election is safely over* or that the new legislative session is just around the corner, but it seems like the Vermont budget is under siege: new requests, new demands on the public purse are flying in from every direction.

*Republican conspiracy theory.

We have the unfunded mandate (in state law) that 80,000 Vermont homes be winterized by the year 2020. The Thermal Efficiency Taskforce is calling for an 11 cent per gallon excise tax on home heating fuels to fund that effort.

We have a special committee about to report on how to address a big financial squeeze in our transportation system. The problem there is dependence on gas tax revenues at a time when fuel efficiency has increased and is likely to keep on doing so. That panel is almost certain to seek new funding sources.

And then there’s a draft report from the Agency of Natural Resources that says Vermont would have to spend $156 million per year to meet clean-water standards. The ANR suggests a few possible sources, but nothing nearly large enough to even approach that figure.

After the jump: the hits just keep on a-comin’.

On top of that is the unknown gap between necessary reconstruction after Tropical Storm Irene, and the amount that FEMA will be willing to pay for state buildings and highway culverts. We still await FEMA’s decisions, but the agency has already made it clear that the amount will be less than the Shumlin Administration had requested.

And let’s not forget the prospect that low-income Vermonters will face sharp increases in healthcare costs under the new insurance exchange. The legislature will face heavy pressure to narrow that gap, if not fill it entirely.

There were also the dueling reports last week about an imbalance in the Department of Mental Health budget: one, from VTDigger, put the shortfall at $20 million. After that report came out, DMH officials changed their tune and said the real gap is around $5.3 million.

I’m sure there are other items on this list. For instance, Secretary of State Jim Condos is calling for changes in election law and campaign finance law, some of which will require new reporting systems.

All of this coming at a time when the Joint Fiscal Office estimates that next year’s budget is out of balance to the tune of $50-70 million.

I don’t really have a conclusion here, I just thought it’d be good to see all of this in one place. This is going to be a really difficult legislative session, even with the Dems’ one-sided majorities.

It’s times like this I’m very happy to be right where I am — a sideline observer of the process, rather than someone who has to figure out what in hell to do.  

When is a broad-based tax not a broad-based tax?

Governor Shumlin has made it clear he firmly opposes any increase in “broad-based taxes.” Don’t even think about it, is his message to lawmakers who’ll be looking for ways to address a tough budget situation.

His definition of broad-based taxes? Income, sales, and rooms and meals.

The first two are no-brainers. But rooms and meals? Is that really a broad-based tax? Or, to put it another way, is it really broader-based than some other forms of taxation?

Vermont has a goal of weatherizing 80,000 homes by the year 2020, which would save a whole lot of money and energy; but there’s no funding mechanism in place to meet the goal.  According to the Vermont Press Bureau, a task force will recommend a tax on most home heating fuels — kerosene, propane, coal, and fuel oil. Natural gas, reports VTDigger, is already subject to an energy efficiency tax; biomass and firewood would be exempt.

At his news conference last week, Shumlin was specifically asked if such a fuel tax should be considered “broad-based.” After a substantial pause, the Governor finally said no, such a tax would not be broad-based. Not so fast, says Matt Cota of the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association:

“This is a broad-based tax,” he said. “Whether you’re rich, poor, or a business, everyone pays.” Cota estimated that about 170,000 homes in Vermont use heating oil or propane, representing about 70 percent of the housing stock.

I’m inclined to support a fuel tax that would fund weatherization. Fossil fuels are undertaxed as it is, since their prices don’t reflect the costs of carbon emissions. A fuel tax for weatherization is perfectly logical. Kills two birds with one stone.  

But I have to agree with Cota: it is a broad-based tax.

 It’s less broad-based than sales or income, but it’s certainly broader-based than the rooms and meals tax. It’s also much more regressive; the rooms and meals tax hits higher-income people harder, while a fuel tax would have a bigger proportionate impact on poorer people.

And no, I’m not saying we should increase the rooms and meals tax instead. I’m just saying I don’t buy the Governor’s reasoning.  

Especially since we’ve got this other big item staring us in the face: a huge bill for water quality improvements. The Agency of Natural Resources says the state would have to increase spending by $156 million a year to meet our water quality challenges. That’s such a high price tag that the ANR didn’t even try to recommend a way to raise it all. It suggested a range of taxes or surcharges, including a stormwater fee for each property, a surcharge on the income or property tax, and taxes on items that contribute to water pollution such as motor fuels or fertilizers.

Even if we approved all those measures, we’d still be far short of the needed revenue. The best we can hope for is a substantial influx of federal money — at a time when the feds are trying to tighten their belts. But to get even a decent start on improving water quality, we’re facing some tax and fee increases.

And none of them are on Shumlin’s list of broad-based taxes. He has crafted a definition that will let him present himself as a fiscal tightwad, while leaving himself quite a bit of wiggle room to increase state revenues.  

Planespotting

Unlike some of my colleagues in this space, I’m not particularly exercised about the F-35 issue. I just don’t think it’s going to make that much difference, and there are far bigger items on the political agenda.

That said, my goodness, Governor Shumlin’s little Florida junket was a complete waste of time and the GBIC’s money, wasn’t it? The best he can hope for is that this event will be quickly forgotten. It certainly won’t change anyone’s mind, and it displayed one of Shummy’s less endearing political quirks — his inability to appear plausibly concerned with the opinions of people who disagree with him.

So he goes down to Florida with a bunch of F-35 supporters and two journalists — Terri Hallenbeck of the Freeploid and Kirk Carapezza of VPR. And how do these reporters show their appreciation? They take pictures of him palling around with junket bankroller Ernie Pomerleau, and wearing big ugly headphones whenever he’s anywhere near those Air Force whisperjets.  

And what’s worse, they report some of the stupid stuff the junketeers had to say.  

Shumlin said when he first saw the plane, “Wow.”

“I’m shocked at how quiet the F-35 is,” Shumlin said afterward.

Shumlin tells Pomerleau there’s only one thing that could convince him that the noise between the two jets is appreciably different: “If I can’t hear you on the flight home!”

Ba ha ha, he used the same joke on Paul Heintz last week.

“Volume – seems to me – is about the same. But don’t forget the F-16 is not using the afterburner. You crank that afterburner and I bet you that the F-16 is louder,” Shumlin says, standing on the tarmac.

So the F-35 might be louder, except when the F-16 is. Brilliant.  

And finally, best of all:

“The noise issue should not hold us back from embracing the F-35,” Shumlin says.

(Quotes #1 and 2 from the Freeploid; others from VPR.) Summing it up, then: the Governor came down with “open ears” but wouldn’t change his mind unless he was deafened by the F35, his evaluation of the noise was laughably transparent, and finally, he says the noise doesn’t matter.

Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger joined Shumlin in elevating his own foot and inserting it between his lips. Freeploid:

Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger, who came as a supporter of the jets, went away unchanged. “It’s a different sound,” he said. “There was not a dramatic difference.”

Winooski Mayor and amateur audiologist Mike O’Brien, the only F-35 agnostic on the trip, performed a scienterrific evaluation of the noise with his iPad. Which unfortunately showed the F-35 blasting 114 decibels to the F-16’s 101. (Decibels are logarithmic units, so a difference of 13 dB is quite substantial.) And then he proceeded to make excuses: the F-35 may have seemed louder because it flew closer to him.  And,

“They’re both loud,” O’Brien said afterward.

Of the F-35’s sound, he said, “It didn’t blow my socks off. It’s a deeper sound. It’s really hard to compare the whole thing this quickly.”

In other words, the whole thing was pointless.

Our thanks to Mayors Weinberger and O’Brien for their invaluable public service, and our best wishes to the Governor on his Italian vacation.

 

The Freeploid’s Great Document Hunt

The Burlington Free Press today continued its effort to milk a hot story for all it’s wor — ahem, I mean, cover an issue of public interest — with another article about the state’s reluctance to release documents in the Jim Deeghan case. Deeghan is the former Vermont State Police sergeant accused of massively padding his time sheets and writing almost 1,000 fake traffic tickets.

And those tickets are the documents in question. The Freeploid has been seeking the names of motorists cited on the bogus tickets, and expected to receive them by now. But Deeghan’s lawyer has objected to releasing the list, and prosecutors have, so far, acceded to his objection.

In a diary posted on Monday, i noted my ambivalence about the Freeploid’s heavy use of Public Records Requests. On the one hand, it has every right to seek the documents and has sometimes uncovered stories that people need to know about.  

On the other hand, it’s a relatively easy way to conduct “investigative journalism” — file PRRs and wait for the documents to be released. And the Freeploid is never shy about patting itself on the back for its public-records safaris. But there are other tools in the journalistic woodshop. And, speaking as a subscriber who reads the (virtual) paper every day, my sense is that the Freeploid leans too heavily on PRRs and doesn’t spend enough time on other types of reporting and analysis.

Take the Deeghan case, for example. The Freeploid is getting a lot of mileage out of its request for that list of motorists; in the past week, it’s published two stories reporting that the list is still under wraps. Which seems a bit much. To be sure, the list is a public document and the ‘Loid is within its rights to pursue the list.

But I don’t give a tinker’s cuss about the list, or who’s on it. And when the Freeploid finally gets the list, I’m sure it will publish a nice long story reporting the reactions of folks who are on the list — a piece of reportorial puffery designed to get maximum mileage out of the story without any meaningful information.

After the jump: What’s really important in the Deeghan case.

What I do care about is how in hell Jim Deeghan was able to do what he is alleged to have done: faking his time sheets to such an extent that he was one of the highest-paid employees on the state payroll, racking up more overtime than just about anyone else on the force, and entering hundreds of fake tickets in the system. And what, if any, disciplinary action has been (or will be) taken against Deeghan’s supervisors. You know, the guys who signed his time sheets.

What kind of a system allows such wholesale abuses to happen? And keep on happening for years? If the system is so lax, how do we know there aren’t other fraudsters among Vermont’s Finest?

Those questions, as far as I’m aware, have yet to be answered. Meanwhile, the Freeploid keeps on chasing irrelevant — or, at best, tangential — issues because it can be done the easy way: through Public Records Requests.  

It’s like running a 100-meter dash and stopping at 99

Ah, I see a formulaic little news item typical for this time of year:

As the holidays approach, Vermont State Police are stepping up enforcement.

Very good. Details?

Troopers, along with local and county law enforcement agencies, will be conducting DUI checkpoints and increasing patrols in Windham County from Dec. 16 to Dec. 30.

Uh, boss? Question over here.

You’re doing special DUI checkpoints for the holidays, and you’re ending them on Decemer 30. Really.

Ever hear of New Year’s Eve? Biggest night of the year for drinking and driving?

Maybe they’re gonna have Jim Deeghan on duty that night.  

Skip Vallee brings a popgun to the O.K. Corral

Oh noes, Skip Vallee is angry. And you wouldn’t want to see Skip Vallee when he’s angry.

The gasoline magnate, Republican moneybags and failed candidate is angry because Bernie Sanders is sticking his nose in Skippy’s profit margin. Ace reporter Paul Heintz has the deets:

The owner of nearly 40 Vermont Mobil stations has produced a 30-second political attack ad accusing Sanders of siding with “big business” to damage the state’s environment. And he’s threatening to plunk down a chunk of cash to put his ad on-air.

And by “siding with big business,” Skip means “asking questions about Vallee’s efforts to block a proposed Costco gas station in Colchester that would bring competitive pressure on the market.” But in the ad, Bernie is depicted as a corporate puppet bent on despoiling Vermont’s prostine environment:

“Leaders like Sen. Patrick Leahy have fought to provide resources to make Vermont a cleaner place. That’s why we are so disappointed with Sen. Bernie Sanders,” the narrator says as the soundtrack turns darker. “Bernie sided with a multinational, billion-dollar corporation over Vermonters – supporting development that will increase traffic and idling emissions and phosphorous runoff in Lake Champlain, leading to more algae blooms.”

Mmm-hmm, one more gas station at a bustling freeway exit will be the straw that broke Lake Champlain’s back. That’ll fly like a lead balloon: a big businessman trying to paint Bernie Sanders as a tool of big business.

Uh, Skippy, basic rule of politics: an attack ad, in order to be effective, has to reflect some measure of reality. Or at least an established stereotype of reality. Think the 2004 ad with John Kerry windsurfing, or this year’s Obama ads painting Mitt Romney as a hard-core one-percenter.

You can’t just take someone with a 30-year political record and slosh him with a completely contradictory accusation. Well, you can; you just can’t expect it to work.

Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in Vermont. If Skip believes that he can take on Bernie and hope to prevail, well, he’s seriously delusional. He needs to stop poking the bear and back slowly out of the cave.  

Bernie pwns the Skipper

Sen. Bernie Sanders came out yesterday with another salvo in his War On Gas Prices. This time, the dastardly socialist is using facts.



Facts!

Scurrilous bastard.

For those just tuning in, Sanders has been raising a stink for months about the disparity between gas prices in the greater Burlington area and other parts of the state. He’s leveled accusations of price gouging against the four companies that own the majority of Chittenden County gas stations and thus, presumably, have significant price-setting power.

In the absence of tangible action, and amid continuing excuse-making by one of the Gang of Four, conservative moneybags and failed political candidate Skip Vallee*, Sanders has launched a website tracking gas prices in Vermont and offering proof that prices are consistently higher in Chittenden County and points north.

*In an e-mail to the Associated Press, Vallee claimed that “We are competitive in every market we are in.” Well yeah, that’s kinda the point, Skipper; you meet prevailing prices, but you don’t go lower unless you’re forced to do so by others.

Bernie’s website includes a lot of useful information for consumers, and resources on the broader issues in play.  

There’s a chart showing the persistent gap between average prices in Burlington and average prices across the state. There’s a pair of lists: one with the best prices in northwestern Vermont, all between $3.56 and $3.59 per gallon, and the other with the best prices anywhere in the state, ranging from $3.38 to $3.44. The lowest prices in Vermont, as of this writing, are all in Springfield, Ascutney, Ludlow and Middlebury. I could see an argument for lower prices in Springfield and Ascutney, located along I-91 relatively close to New England ports. But why Middlebury? It’s a small, remote market.  

Well, actually, we know why Middlebury’s prices are lower. As Seven Days reported back in July, Middlebury is home to Champlain Valley Plumbing and Heating, a retailer that’s willing to lower its prices. As CVPH co-owner Bill Heffernan told 7D, “We set the tone in Middlebury. Whatever we go to, people follow.” At the time, CVPH was charging $3.40 a gallon, while prices in Burlington ranged from $3.61 to $3.72.

Sadly, Burlington lacks a price leader like CVPH; instead, the Queen City is stuck with the Skipper and his ilk, satisfied to be competitive within the terms of their oligopolistic market. (Even as he continues to fight Costco’s effort to build a gas station off I-89 in Colchester. A curious move by such an ardent champion of competition.)

Joseph Choquette, a lobbyist for the Vermont Petroleum Association, kinda let the cat out of the bag when he told the Freeploid that prices are based on customers’ willingness to pay. Or, in other words, “we’ve got them over a barrel.”

“How are you going to force prices down if people are willing to pay them?” Choquette posed.

…He offered as well that people pay more for gasoline because they want other services or geographic convenience.

Yeah, like the “geographic convenience” of not driving from Burlington to Middlebury to fill your tank. Or the “geographic convenience” of Burlington’s often-fierce traffic: who wants to drive across town, or even a couple miles away, in hopes of saving a nickel a gallon? Not many. Burlington, with its traffic, relative affluence, and ownership concentration, seems to be ideal ground for a noncompetitive market that gives sellers a big edge over buyers.

And as for Choquette’s question, how’s this for an answer: You can force prices down through a combination of public embarrassment and the dogged determination of Bernie Sanders.  

Good Santa, Evil Santa, Coal in the Stocking

A holiday-themed edition of our usual Monday feature “Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down…”

Jason “I Ran for Secretary of State and All I Got Was This Lousy T-shirt” Gibbs, for getting his new PR business off to a flying start by attaching himself, lamprey-like, to the second-biggest cash cow in Vermont politics: Bruce Lisman’s Campaign for Vermont. (The first is, of course, Lenore Broughton’s vanity project, Vermonter(s) First.)

Gibbs isn’t directly working for CFV; he’s got a contract with Capital Connections, a Republican-leaning lobbying shop* which numbers CFV as one of its clients. Sounds like featherbedding to me. Why does a lobbying firm need to outsource its communications strategy? And why should Bruce Lisman pay Capital Communications to pay Jason Gibbs?

* CC may well balk at that characterization, but when the testimonials on its website are all from prominent Republicans and conservative business groups, it’s pretty clear who’s buttering their bread.

Last week, Gibbs announced the opening of his very own communications firm, modestly dubbed “Jason Gibbs, LLC.” Its home on the Interwebs will be the equally modest “gowithgibbs.com,” which had been his campaign website for that ill-starred 2010 run for Secretary of State.

And now, you can buy a piece of the (ahem) expertise and (cough) connections that helped him lose to Democrat Jim Condos by a mere ten percentage points, and that fueled his run as Jim Douglas’ utility infielder — taking on whatever cabinet post was open, regardless of relevant experience.

But congrats to Gibbsy for turning the chickenshit of his resume into the chicken salad of a well-connected consultancy. He must actually have some communication skills; otherwise, how could he convince anyone to buy the expertise of a warmed-over Republican operative in a Democratic town?

Low-income working Vermonters, for taking it in the shorts under the next step of Governor Shumlin’s health care reform plan. VTDigger reports that ShummyCare, as it stands today, would lay the financial smackdown on Vermonters with incomes above the poverty level but still low enough to offer not much more than raw, precarious sustainability. Those people currently get subsidized care through Catamount Health or the Vermont Health Access Plan (VHAP); when the system switches to an insurance exchange in 2014, those two programs will end and their clients will pay higher rates in the exchange.

How much higher? Try almost $10,000 for a couple earning $45,000 a year. Or $6,000 for an individual making $33,500 a year. That’s not a total of 10K or 6K — those are the increases.  That couple would be paying a total of almost $17,000 for health insurance. That’s 38% of their income, just for health care.

Last week, Governor Shumlin said the state can’t afford the $18 million it would cost to hold working Vermonters harmless. Well, merry f*cking Christmas to you too, Governor. That seems awfully harsh, especially since Mark Larson, Commissioner of the Department of Vermont Health Access, has said that the state expects to save $10-15 million because it will no longer be subsidizing health care through Catamount and VHAP. Perhaps Shumlin already has other plans for that money.

The process is just beginning; we’ll see what Shumlin comes up with, and what the Legislature can do. But they’d better come very close to eliminating this draconian levy on the working class, or ShummyCare will seem like a bitterly unfunny joke to the very Vermonters it’s supposed to be helping.

It’s times like these that I appreciate the existence of the Progressive Party. I’d hope the Prog caucus can hold the Dems’ feet to the fire on this, especially considering that Martha Abbott withdrew from the gubernatorial race in order to lend full support to ShummyCare.

After the jump: Shoutouts to two good Vermonters, a State Police Moebius Strip of disinformation, and Bruce Lisman, Sooper Genius.

Robert Appel, outgoing head of the Vermont Human Rights Commission, for eleven years of service in a challenging job. He will join a Hinesburg law firm and begin to enjoy the higher earning potential of a lawyer in the private sector. Which, after his long tenure in public service, I can’t begrudge him.

Appel told VTDigger that his most important case was a 2006 state Supreme Court decision that defined prisons as “places of public accommodation,” which meant, among other things, better psychiatric treatment for inmates. He also represented a lesbian couple in their suit against the Wildflower Inn of Lyndonville, after it refused to host their wedding. Allen Gilbert of the VTACLU said Appel’s biggest accomplishment was clarifying the legal definition of discrimination, which is a murky area in Vermont law. And Gilbert concluded:  

Robert dedicated a large chunk of his life to assisting people who are often maligned, marginalized, and forgotten, helping them to seek a measure of justice. He should be honored for that.

the Vermont State Police, for an iffy adherence to transparency, and for giving an apparent promotion to the guy who signed Jim Deeghan’s timesheets. VSP Lt. Marc Thomas was Deeghan’s supervisor at the Williston barracks during a good chunk of the time that Deeghan was apparently faking vast amounts of overtime and writing hundreds of fake traffic tickets. Thomas was removed from the Williston post after the scandal broke; now he’s been named by VSP Director Tom L’Esperance to serve on a Violent Offender Task Force run by the U.S. Marshals’ Vermont office.

This, while Thomas’ culpability in Deeghan’s alleged fraud is still under investigation. And when the Freeploid came looking for answers on the appointment, the following bit of transparency comedy ensued:

[Public Safety Commissioner Keith] Flynn referred other questions on Friday to L’Esperance, who punted to department spokeswoman Stephanie Dasaro, who was unable to provide any information.

Yeah, that’s why they call ’em “public servants.”

Now, I have mixed feelings about the Freeploid’s incessant poking at the transparency issue. On the one hand, our state and local governments tend to be too closed-off, and that’s not good for the quality of governance or for the public trust. On the other, sometimes I think the Freeploid spends so much of its time on document hunts because it’s an easy way to do “investigative journalism.” Put in a records request; if there’s a delay or a refusal, you’ve got a story. If you don’t get everything you wanted, you’ve got a story. If you get everything on time, you can usually find something to write about. The Freeploid is constantly patting itself on the back for being a public watchdog, and constantly referring to its past transparency scoops (real or inflated), but there are other ways to serve the public interest, and the Freeploid too often falls short of the mark.

Arts impresario Meg Hammond, for continuing to bring creative cultural activities to central Vermont. Hammond and partner Ben T. Matchstick were the team behind the beloved and lamented Langdon Street Cafe, which maintained an insane schedule of concerts and other activities in a tiny Montpelier space.

Hammond is now Events Manager at Goddard College, and has amped up Goddard’s profile in the local cultural scene. She’s organized a really interesting series of concerts at Goddard’s Haybarn Theatre (coming in January: jazz legend Archie Shepp!!!) and she’s scheduling special exhibits at the Goddard Art Gallery in downtown Montpelier. Its latest is a showing by Vermont sculptors Kat Clear and Torin Porter; before that, there was a show of political art by Peter Schumann and the Bread &  Puppet Theater. I’m glad she’s found a new outlet for her talents.  

Vermont’s mental health care system, reeling from the departure of two key leaders and the news of a looming budget shortfall. Last month, Patrick Flood announced his imminent departure as Commissioner of the Department of Mental Health. Even as he was leaving, he maintained that all was hunky-dory with the refashioning of a new health care delivery system.  

It’s hard to believe his assurances now that he’s been joined on the way out by Dr. Jay Batra, DMH medical director and pre-Irene director of the now-closed Vermont State Hospital. And now that we’ve heard two different versions of bad budget news for the mental health care system. By one account, its expenses will rise by almost 50% next year. By another account, the gap is quite a bit smaller than that but still significant, at a time when Governor Shumlin is looking to cut expenses. Not a good time to be a provider or a patient.

Bruce Lisman, Wall Street sooper-genius and newly-bashful* founder of the Campaign for Vermont (Prosperity). for drinking the Republican consultancy Kool-Aid and simultaneously killing whatever remained of his “nonpartisan” credibility. Lisman’s CFV has been repped by the Republican-leaning lobby shop, Capital Connections; now, CC has farmed out the strategic messaging part of that work to Jason Gibbs, LLC.

*On the CFV website, the section formerly known as “The Lisman Perspective” has now been dubbed “Our Perspective.” How communal of you, Mr. Lisman! Is that one of Gibbsy’s rebranding ideas?

So, let’s see. In the first few months of the year, Lisman poured over $200,000 into a completely failed attempt to influence the 2012 political dialogue. After that, Bruce pulled back his horns; no paid advertising, only a smattering of public appearances and op-ed pieces, and the rollout of an energy policy platform full of free-market bromides that was universally ignored and sunk without a trace.

And now he’s turning to a former Douglas Administration functionary and failed Republican political candidate to handle what appears to be a relaunch of CFV. Inspired, I have to assume, by Lenore Broughton’s success in following the same course with Tayt Brooks. International Man of Mystery?

And not only that, but he’s paying a middleman to employ Gibbs, thus throwing bad money after bad. And this is a guy who’s supposed to bring world-class business acumen to our public policy debate?

No thanks.