Deb Markowitz, Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources:

We must address the causes of climate change and prepare for its inevitable impacts. We need to plan, and we need to act. Vermont has an opportunity to lead this effort.

Shap Smith, Speaker of the Vermont House:

“We are going to have to make very, very difficult choice choices around issues that involve our climate and climate change, and how it’s going to impact not only our economy but the way we live and the way our state looks,” Smith said. “We can’t shy away from it because other people are. We can’t say that because the rest of the country is deciding not to take action, that we will not.”

And Peter Shumlin, Governor of the Great State of Vermont:

“There isn’t a Democratic governor who doesn’t understand climate change is the challenge we must focus on like a laser,” he said.

Of course, the Governor used the same analogy elsewhere about a different issue:  “Shumlin also told House Democrats to “focus like a laser” on health care implementation.”

But never mind. The Governor, the state’s top legislative leader*, and its top environmental official were all talking about the same thing last week: a focus, laser-like or not, on fighting climate change.

*Ahead of Senate Penitent Pro Tem John Campbell.

I have to say, I like it. While the chattering class in Washington obsesses endlessly about the deficit, the truth is that climate change is a far more urgent threat. Even if you’re talking strictly dollars and cents: the way things are going, weather-related disasters will have a much greater impact than shortfalls in Medicare or Social Security or the alleged perfidy of the Chinese.  

What does this mean for legislation in 2013? As Peter Hirschfeld of the Vermont Press Bureau reports, expect a new push for weatherization of Vermont homes:  

“Where we’ve done very well in Vermont is efficiency that has anything to do with (electricity) running into the home,” Shumlin said. “I think where we have failed is in thermal efficiency, and I’m working together with my team to try to find ways to speed up our progress in thermal efficiency.”

The Ieglslature passed a bill in 2008 that set a goal of weatherizing 80,000 homes by the year 2020, a goal Shumlin is still hoping to meet. Problem: not enough funding. At his news conference last week, Shumlin conspicuously left the door open to a tax on home heating oil: while reaffirming his opposition to increases in “broad-based taxes,” he admitted that a heating-oil tax wouldn’t meet his definition of a broad-based tax.

And, judging from the general tone of the three leaders’ remarks, expect a strong continued push for renewables — including utility-scale wind. Shumlin, speaking last week at the Democratic Governors Association meeting in California:

“We’re harnessing the wind, our sun, our streams, and our fields to get off of our addiction to fossil-burning fuels,” he said. “It’s not only a moral imperative, but it’s an economic jobs opportunity. The industrial revolution created huge amount of jobs, the tech revolution created a huge amount of jobs – and this is the same thing.”

The Governor’s Energy Generation Siting Policy Commission is still a work in progress — it’s due to issue a report to the Legislature no later than April 30 — but if this flurry of top-level urgency on climate change is any indication, it’s hard to see how the Administration would be willing to slow down or significantly limit opportunities for expansion of wind and other renewable energy sources.

Shap Smith believes Vermont can be a leader on fighting climate change, just as it’s been on some social issues. I hope he’s right. Somebody’s got to do it, and it ain’t gonna be anybody in Washington.  

IBM just became a somewhat less attractive place to work. The outsourcing giant is changing how it makes matching contributions to employees’ 401(k) plans. Starting January 1, an employee’s payment will be made in one lump sum, on December 15 of each year. Currently, payments are made semi-monthly.

Which wouldn’t be a huge deal, except for one thing: IBM has been rapidly cutting its US workforce, making thousands of layoffs each year. The company has cut at least 30% of its domestic workforce in the past five years (we don’t know the exact figure because IBM no longer releases layoff figures or the size of its US payroll). And, if one very well-connected tech journalist is right, the company plans to cut even more aggressively in the next three years — reducing its US workforce by 78%.  

And if you get laid off anytime before December 15, you don’t get the matching contributions for that entire year.

The change in policy has angered IBM employees around the country, according to Lee Conrad, national coordinator for Alliance@IBM, an employees union organized under the Communication Workers of America.

“People feel once again that IBM is picking their pockets,” Conrad said Friday. “Everybody knows IBM cuts jobs right up until November. If you’re not employed by December 15, you don’t get that money.”

There’s probably not much the union can do about it;  they don’t represent very many IBM workers, and they mainly serve as a watchdog. In the absence of official IBM releases, Alliance@IBM is the best source for layoff and outsourcing news.

Two other points:  

— Some observers of corporate 401(k) plans believe that other major employers may follow IBM’s example. It’s just one more way to take money away from workers and give it to shareholders and executives.  Er, ahem, I mean “job creators.”

— This change is especially troublesome at a company like IBM with a history of frequent layoffs. But it’s no great shakes for any worker; if your company adopts the same rule and you leave for a better job anytime before mid-December, you lose some of the 401(k) contributions you should have received.  

Went to the Governor’s weekly news conference today. Overflow crowd in the fifth floor meeting room. (But, just like in elementary school, an empty seat right next to the Governor.) The news in brief, followed by the details: Louis Porter becomes the latest addition to the Shumlin cabinet; Shumlin’s inaugural ball will instead be an “inaugural open house” with proceeds helping those affected by Tropical Storm Irene; a cool reception for a new lawsuit against Vermont Yankee; the backstory behind that Hewlett-Packard refund; and a continued opposition to any broad-based tax increases.

Porter Pots Top Post: Louis Porter will replace Alex MacLean as Shumlin’s Secretary of Civil and Military Affairs, a deceptively colorless title for a powerful job. Porter will serve as the liaison between the executive and Legislative branches. Or, as Shumlin put it, “he’ll be overseeing the administration’s agenda in the Statehouse, and ensuring that the Legislature does everything that we want, and should do.”

After Porter’s introduction, one of the assembled scribes stage-whispered “Poor bastard,” which got a nice laugh.

Porter is now Lake Champlain Lakekeeper for the Conservation Law Foundation; before that, he covered the Statehouse for the Vermont Press Bureau. After the presser, Porter entered his first scrum as an Administration factotum (his $72,000 salary may top the combined incomes of all those ink-stained wretches), and acknowledged that he had been very critical of Shumlin for allowing widespread dredging after Tropical Storm Irene. But overall, he said, “the administration and this governor are moving this state in a direction that is good… and to be a part of that is really exciting.” He’ll start his new job in late December.

Paying to see the Governor not dance: Shumlin announced that he wouldn’t have an Inaugural Ball to celebrate the beginning of his second term; instead, there will be an Inaugural Open House on January 10. “Every Vermonter is invited to join us in the Statehouse,” he said, “and we’re going to donate all the proceeds of the Open House to the Vermont Disaster Relief Fund.”  

Shumlin is hoping to give another boost to the VDRF, which has raised more than two-thirds of its financial goal of $10 million. “Over half of that amount has been raised in the last three months alone,” he said; most of that late money has been in large contributions from businesses, foundations, and wealthy individuals, plus proceeds from the continuing sales of the “I Am Vermont Strong” license plates.

Making a guest appearance at the old stomping grounds was longtime AP Bureau Chief turned National Life spokesflack Chris Graff, who serves as head of the VDRF. “Two years ago, people paid a lot of money to see the Governor dance. We think they’ll pay a lot more to not see him dance,” Graff said. He also pitched the license plates as a fine holiday gift.

“What we need to do right now is to keep the focus on Irene survivors,” he continued. One of those survivors, Ann Marie Bolton, was on hand; her mobile home was destroyed by Irene, and funds from VDRF helped her make a down payment on a new house and do necessary repairs. She just moved into the house less than a month ago.

The new lawsuit against VY: This week, the New England Coalition filed a lawsuit seeking the closure of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. Shumlin reiterated his support for closing VY but didn’t endorse the NEC action. Outgoing Public Service Commissioner Liz Miller said “we’re reviewing carefully” NEC’s filing:

It’s a complicated matter. My understanding is that the specific type of action the New England Coalition has filed hasn’t been used in the state in a number of decades. We’ve had our focus very much on the Public Service Board proceeding, because the federal district court was very clear last year that the Publc Service Board retains jurisdiction to decide whether to continue the operation of VY past the CPG that expired last March.

That set of hearings is coming up starting in February. …We continue to have our focus there, and from my point of view, that’s a good place to have our focus. …But meanwhile, we will look at what the NEC has filed and determine whether the Department will weigh in.

In short, Miller expressed uncertainty over the NEC strategy, and confidence in the administration’s course — pursuing closure of Vermont Yankee through the PSB.

Taxes and spending: Shumlin urged local school districts to hold the line on spending increases. This came after news that, if local districts don’t do so, the statewide property tax will rise by 5%. Regarding the state budget, he estimated that next year’s is about $60 to 70 million out of balance, and again vowed to hold the line on taxes. He said “one of the priorities of this legislative session is to balance the budget without raising broad-based taxes at all, and I would suggest that if some items in your budget go up, you find ways to cut in other areas.”

(He defined “broad-based taxes” as “sales, income, rooms and meals.” Coming off of a two-night stay at the Beverly Wilshire and its Michelin-starred eateries, I can see how he’d think of “rooms and meals” as a broad-based tax.)

This led to another story in the news this week: new requirements for stormwater treatment that will mean up to $100 million in new costs to local communities. “A lotta loot,” he noted, “and Vermont doesn’t have it. I care deeply about clean water in Vermont, and we’re losing that battle right now.” As the new chair of the Democratic Governors Association, he plans to make a strong case for more federal funding for water-treatment improvements, because local communities can’t do it alone.

“The entire [legislative] session will be about jobs and raising income for those who have jobs,” he said. “There are a number of ways we’re going to get there. The first is by balancing the budget without raising broad-based taxes. And I met with legislative leaders this morning and made very clear that I’m going to be as firm on that this year as I have been the past two years.” He believes that Vermont’s taxes are “too high, and we will stifle job growth if we increase broad-based taxes.”

Shummy’s buddies at HP: In something of a tangent, Shumlin talked about the events leading up to Hewlett-Packard’s $8.37 million refund to the state for a failed effort at modernizing computer systems at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

I developed close relationships with the folks who run HP, and in that friendship I made clear my concern about the DMV contract. And I twice used those friendships to fly to California and meet with HP and explain to them why we deserved a refund. And it is through those relationships that we succeeded in getting that refund.

He recounted a series of meetings with HP “friends” starting one year ago, that led to the refund agreement.

When asked if there was a pattern of failed software and hardware upgrades, he said yes, but added that it’s common in both the public and private sectors to have problems with computer systems: “My business and many others often make investments in technology, some of which bear great fruit and some of which fail miserably. …Both public and private sectors struggle with IT investments that don’t pan out.”

He also said that he’d known the HP refund was coming since his most recent meeting with the company — back in July. He said it took this long to work out all the details. But I think it’s a sign of how confident he was about his re-election campaign that he didn’t try to announce the deal before November 6.  

An almost-forgotten item caused more stir than anything else at Governor Shumlin’s weekly news conference today. Just as spokesflack Susan Allen was bringing down the curtain, Shumlin remembered one more thing:

On Wednesday, I will be flying to Elgin Air Force Base with a group of Vermonters including the Mayor of Burlington and the Mayor of Winooski to listen to the F-35s. I have long said and told Vermonters that the best way to know how much noise they make is to stand there and listen to one.

…During the campaign, I committed to a number of voters who were concerned about the F-35. And I said, ‘When I have more time, I want to go listen to them.” And I am.

Checking the Google, I see it’s actually “Eglin” Air Force Base, down Florida way. (While you’re there, visit the Air Force Armament Museum!)

This announcement provoked a flurry of questions but not much more in the way of illumination. The Governor is a declared supporter of basing F-35s at the Burlington Airport. When asked by Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz if he might change his mind, he deadpanned “If I can’t hear you when I come back, I’m going to change my mind.”

When asked essentially the same question again a few minutes later, he replied:

I’ve been told by informed people that if you fly an F-35 properly, that the noise difference between that and what we’re currently flying in Burlington, the F-16, is not significantly different. I’d like to hear that for myself.

In other words, I’m keeping an open mind but don’t expect it to change.

Stay tuned for more news from today’s presser.  

Earlier this week, the Department of Mental Health gave information to state lawmakers that indicated a sizable hole in next year’s budget: an increase in mental health expenses from this year’s $41.1 million to next year’s $61.5 million.

Now, DMH says there was a big oopsie in there. Vermont Press Bureau (article paywalled; published in the 12/5 Times Argus):    

Due to a spreadsheet tallying error, the actual expenses projected are $52.7 million for fiscal year 2014, said Mental Health Department Financial Director Heidi Hall during an interview Tuesday.

A better figure, to be sure; but did no one double-check the spreadsheet before giving it to the Legislature?

After the jump: the real budget hole totals $5.3 million, says DMH.

Anyway, that wasn’t the only bit of budget news. DMH also said Tuesday that much of the increased operating cost won’t be borne by the state, but by the federal government. The actual increase “in certain Department of Mental health expenses related to the restructuring of the state’s psychiatric health system” (to quote the VPB’s inarticulate but accurate phrasing): $5.3 million.

Which, if I’m reading the tea leaves correctly, means the feds will pick up more than half of the increased costs — which total $11.6 million, if my numbers (and the DMH’s revised spreadsheet) are correct.  So why the difference in federal dollars?

…a new psychiatric hospital in Berlin will generate millions more in Medicaid reimbursements that the state had previously lost as a consequence of the old state hospital’s decertification.

Score one for the new hospital. Still, DMH will have to seek a $5.3 budget increase to cover the higher costs of the new system, and that won’t be easy. But it’s a lot better than $20 million.

A reminder that all these figures are for operating expenses, not for construction. And the state’s price tag for construction is still up in the air, thanks to the ongoing dispute with FEMA.  

Another dose of bad news for Vermont’s mental health care system: Dr. Jay Batra, the medical director for the Department of Mental Health and, until Irene, head of the Vermont State Hospital, is leaving at the end of this month for a job in the private sector.

Coming on the heels of Patrick Flood’s resignation as DMH head, and the news of a 50% increase in projected spending for mental health care next year, this is yet another sign of serious trouble in the system.

The only real surprise in Dr. Batra’s departure is that it didn’t happen sooner. He made it very clear that he was left out of the loop when the Shumlin Administration was formulating its plan to replace VSH. And since the hospital’s closure, he’s been trying to patch together a hideously overtaxed system with baling wire and duct tape.

In the short run, his departure means that patching job will go on a while longer. The state’s eight-bed facility in Morrisville is about ready to go online, but it can’t operate without a medical director. That would have been Dr. Batra.

Acting Mental Health Commissioner [Mary] Moulton says she trying to find a local psychiatrist would can step in and do the job, perhaps in affiliation with another hospital in Vermont.

I think she’s going to have a lot of trouble on that score. Local psychiatrists, as well as nurses and other caregivers, know exactly how dire the situation is. It’d take a remarkably selfless individual to agree to take charge of this mess.  

The State Senate recount has been completed up in Franklin County, and Democrat Don Collins is unofficially confirmed as the second winner. On Election Night, Collins was credited with a 26-vote edge over Republican Dustin Degree; the recount gives him a 35-vote margin.

The results will be made official tomorrow by a county judge, but there is only one ballot in question, so don’t expect any changes.

The recount results, with the top two elected”

Norm McAllister (R) 7735

Don Collins (D) 7439

Dustin Degree (R) 7404

Caroline Bright (D) 7044

Congratulations to Don Collins!

The Vermont Republican Party exits 2012 with tiny minorities in the Legislature and only one statewide officeholder — who is also the only Republican on the horizon with any broad popularity or name recognition: Lt. Gov. Phil Scott. It’s almost universally assumed that he will run for Governor someday; the speculation is mainly whether he’d run as a Republican or as an independent. In a recent interview with WDEV’s Mark Johnson, (link to audio podcast) Scott did nothing to close the door on leaving the Republican Party.

Well, today, VTGOP Chair Jack Lindley was a guest on the Mark Johnson Show. And he didn’t exactly make a strong plea for Scott to remain in the party.

Every candidate has their rights, and their own political instincts. My sense is that with the exception of Bernie sanders, there really hasn’t been any strong independents elected statewide in Vermont. [If Scott were to leave,] I would wish him well. He’s a great candidate. I think he really belongs on the Republican ledger, on our side, but if he chose to go in another direction, I can’t prevent that from happening.

Mark’s rejoinder: “You’d let him go that easily, huh?” To which Lindley didn’t respond at all; he simply changed the subject:

Well, you know, my job as chairman is to make sure that we have a strong Legislature and a strong — that’s where our bench comes from is the Legislature, and if we don’t have strong candidates out there who are willing to take some time to help our state out of the mess that it’s going into and that it’s in, then we all have a real problem.

Ol’ Jack isn’t always good on finishing the sentences he starts, but does he really believe that a party chair isn’t concerned with the statewide slate — and particularly with the gubernatorial candidate?

Lindley isn’t quite coming out and saying “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out,” but it’s pretty darn close. I would have expected something like “Phil is the leading figure in Republican politics, and I believe he will be the next Republican Governor of Vermont.”

Not so much, apparently. The message seems to be that Phil Scott needs the VTGOP more than the party needs Phil Scott, which seems remarkably deluded to me. I guess it’s not just my imagination that Scott is too moderate for current Republican tastes.

Otherwise, the most interesting characteristic of Lindley’s interview was its civility.  

He did the obligatory amount of lipsticking the pig, of course, and some of that included sideswipes at the Dems, but nothing especially outrageous. Other items of interest:

The state of the VTGOP. He said that, over the past few years, the county and town structure of the party had fallen apart, which is a pretty stark thing to say. He blamed it on party faithful who have had to step back from the party and turn their full attention to their livelihoods. (Which isn’t a problem for the Democrats, who are living in the same economic times, but whatever.)

He also noted that when he came on board as chair in February, the party was “pretty much broke.” He said fundraising has picked up since then, although there’s been very little sign of that in the party’s financial reports.

He also acknowledged some “branding issues.” Which, as I’ve said before, sounds less like “we’ve got to reassess ourselves and our policies” and more like “we need more lipstick on this pig.” He talked about specifically branding the VERMONT Republican Party (as opposed to those national dipwads, I suppose) as the party of thoughtful, practical, disciplined governance. (As opposed to those national dipwads.)

The impact of PACs. This interested me, because there may be broad consensus in favor of requiring more transparency in political action committees. Lindley says he’d like to see limits on PACs, but acknowledged that the Citizens United decision restricts possible reforms:

Full and timely reporting is probably the only thing that the courts will allow us to do toward curbing the excesses of PACs.

That would seem to indicate a strong bipartisan base for campaign finance reforms — at least in the area of disclosure. Given the gaps and flaws in Vermont’s current reporting requirements, enhanced disclosure would be a very good thing.  

The VTGOP’s future. He estimated that it would take two full election cycles for the party to come all the way back. Which, on the one hand, seems awfully optimistic; and on the other, he’s basically conceding the 2014 election, at least at the top of the ticket. That’s a striking statement coming from any party chair.

I think we need to make sure that in the next election, we have the organization and technology in place that we need in order to pick up more than half the distance we’re down. I’m optimistic we can do better than that, but we will probably need to make one more run after that.

His own future. Mark cheekily noted that if Lindley were a baseball manager he would have been fired by now, and asked him more than once if he was really the right person for the job. Lindley said he is committed to serving out his term, which expires in November 2013, and indicated a willingness to run for another term.

And when asked for, I think, the third time, if he was really the right guy, he said:

Well, if I can find somebody else. at my age, I don’t necessarily need to hang in there. If I could find somebody young and brighter than a tack, and has the great ability to put things together, I’m more than willing to step aside. But at this point in time, I’m going to give it the old college try.  

Rah, rah, rah!

With a new legislative session just around the corner, little signs of budget distress are popping up all over. Here’s the latest: According to VTDigger, Department of Mental Health officials have told lawmakers that this year’s expenditures are $1.15 million over budget — and next year’s spending is expected to be $20 million above that. Which is a hell of a lot, considering that this year’s budget for the mental health system was just under $40 million.

In other words, the projected cost will rise by 50% next year.

And that doesn’t include construction costs for new facilities.

The major annual operating cost increases stem from the $9 million needed to run the new state hospital [in Berlin] and the roughly $3.6 million to operate facilities in Chittenden and Rutland counties. Other cost increases are spread out across the board, according to a department spreadsheet.

I’ve been saying all along that advocates of community-based care may come to regret backing the Shumlin plan: the administration has promised better care for all in exchange for reduced inpatient space. With the costs of inpatient care on the rise, it remains to be seen whether that promise will ever be fulfilled. .  

Another factor unaccounted for: how much cost shifting has there been since the Vermont State Hospital closed? Presumably, the state has saved some money by not having a VSH. On the other hand, hospital emergency rooms have seen higher costs because they’ve served as holding pens when there are no available mental health beds. Which is frequently the case. And, presumably, community mental health systems have been under pressure to treat sicker people and keep them out of hospitals. Also, in the constant search for beds, there’s been a lot of patient-shifting around the state. Has the state been covering some of those costs?

Those are questions that would help us more fairly evaluate the system’s financial straits.

However, there’s one unknown that is really, in the immortal words of Donald Rumsfeld, “a known unknown.”

Legislators and officials in the statehouse on Monday discussed the difficulty of budgeting for psychiatric care.

“Trying to pinpoint the number (of psychiatric patients) is almost impossible,” said Sen. Jeanette White, D-Putney. “We have no idea how many of our 620,000 residents will need inpatient or outpatient care.”

With respect, Senator, I hope you don’t really believe that. And I especially hope you’re not laying the groundwork for cutting the budget because “we don’t really know.” Senator White is using the same rationalization employed by President Bush for keeping the Iraq and Afghanistan wars out of his budgets.

It’s actually not that hard to project future needs. In fact, it’s standard operating practice. How do you know how much snow will fall this winter? How many crimes will be committed, or how many defendants will be sent to prison? How do you know exactly how much tax revenue will come in?

The answer, in all cases, is you can’t “pinpoint” the future cost of anything. But you have a damn good idea based on past experience and expert planning, and you have contingency plans in case things go sideways.

And when the projection for next year goes up by 50%, well, it’s a pretty strong indication of trouble on the horizon.  

A correspondent brings to my attention a post-election fundraising letter from John MacGovern.

You remember him, don’t you? The “winner” of the Republican primary for U.S. Senate, who went on to be predictably trounced by Bernie Sanders. Well, it appears that ol’ John overspent his budget just a little bit, and he needs some help from whatever friends he might still have.

For most of us election day, Tuesday, November 6, was not a great day. Certainly, it was not a great day for America. However, considering this was my first statewide run in Vermont, I did well in my race against Senator Bernie Sanders receiving 25% of the vote, in a 6-way race.

Actually, John, for “most of us” Election Day was a very good day; after all, “most of us” voted for the Dems, didn’t we?

But let’s move on to his evident self-delusion. John MacGovern may be the only candidate in American political history who thinks he “did well” by getting one-quarter of the vote. And who apparently believes, in spite of that dreadful showing, that he deserves another shot at political office:

…I am not sure what my next effort will be, but I plan to continue.

In order to do that, however, I must first retire the small debt I am left with so I can consider the next race. 

… Please, will you help me retire my debt? I owe about $30,000 to campaign vendors and workers. Please, be as generous as you possibly can so that we can move forward as strong as possible.

First of all, that’s “as strongly as possible.” As a Dartmouth man, I’d expect you to know that. But grammatical quibbles aside, $30,000 would be a “small debt” to many politicians, but it amounts to a sizable proportion of MacGovern’s hapless campaign.  

According to OpenSecrets.org, as of mid-October, MacGovern had raised $102,000 and spent $81,000, leaving him with roughly $20,000 in cash.

If that report is accurate, then somehow MacGovern managed to outspend his resources by $50,000 in the final three weeks of the campaign. Exactly what he spent it on is anybody’s guess; his campaign was, to all intents and purposes, invisible. (Maybe he hired Darcie Johnston; that’d do it.)

But it seems blatantly hypocritical, coming from a guy who issued a clarion call against the federal debt on the homepage of his campaign website:  

Currently that debt has reached a staggering $15 trillion. As our broken entitlement system hurtles toward the cliff of insolvency, that already unsustainable debt will explode.
 


How can we spend money we don’t have?

I don’t know, John. How could you do it? And why should you expect anyone with a brain in their head to bail you out?