Even as I continue to get emails scoffing at the oddsmaker… From Vermont View:

Washington County Sen. Anthony Pollina, the biennial Progressive candidate who took more than 20 percent of the vote in the 2008 governor’s race, said Monday that, in light of Shumlin’s stance against the workers’ grievance, Progs may have to rethink their partnership with the Democratic governor.

“At this point, I’m not contemplating (a third-party gubernatorial candidacy),” Pollina said. “But I know that conversation is beginning to percolate around.”

A modicum of effort (and humility) on the part of the administration, and this all gets straightened out. Seriously. Step one is to stop the self-inflicted wounding.

Not a news diary, here, so if you’re looking for journalistic edge, please remember this is a blog (as in “web log”), not a news site like Vermont Digger (which people are always accusing of being a blog, which it ain’t).

But a thought on the VSEA vs. Shumlin activity, which – as of this weekend – is escalating dangerously close to the VSEA vs. The Democratic State Committee (see previous diary).

Now I’m going to do something that annoys people, I’m gonna talk crass political strategizing, and leave the ethics/ideology out of it. Again, this is my online web diary and that’s just the way I am.

So let’s put aside the value and morality of unions and the labor movement and ask: was the decision to block a resolution urging the Shumlin administration to back off it’s media war with the State Employees’ union (and allow the grievance process to run its course) a good idea strategically? The answer is a resounding ‘no,’ but represents an all-too-typical mistake on the part of powerful Democratic politicians.

When we talk about the genesis of a conflict, we talk about communication being “charged.” We say “sparks will fly.” This is a good analogy, and I’m going to take it further. All sparks, whether from a frayed power cord or a bolt of lightning, have one thing in common – they seek the ground. That spark is seeking the shortest path to ground, and the safest thing to do when a big spark is seeking the ground is to get out of its way. Better still – if it’s a lightning bolt we’re talking about, better to provide a lightning rod to get it to ground as quickly and efficiently as possible. If you try to block the spark, it either blasts through the blockage, or it makes its way around the blockage in unpredictably dangerous ways.

The Shumlin administration brought the VSEA grievance on itself. It may have been a foolish or naive grievance to pursue on the union’s part, but the point is it was predictable. The administration approached the union before the story broke about how to avoid a double-time pay scenario and a solution was mutually agreed to. Then the administration dropped the ball, and a grievance was filed. Cause-effect. It didn’t have to be a big deal. It only is because, once again, Democratic politicians and advisors to politicians pointlessly fixate on how they think people and institutions should respond to situations, as opposed to understanding the simple mechanics of how they actually will respond.

And then the administration went public, with Shumlin personally putting out the video of his comments, even getting a li’l choked up (ugh), about those mean, mean public employees trying to stick it to Vermonters. Put simply, they picked a public fight (and in a particularly inartful way).

Well, sparks flew. Sparks that could’ve been avoided (more on that in a sec). That spark is heading to ground – and likely would have reached the ground through the State Committee and dissipated – if not for the misguided effort of the administration, through Chair Perkinson, to block it. Now? Well, now it’s going to continue to seek ground, but in dangerously unpredictable and destructive ways.

And why? For the same reason the public fight was started to begin with: Foolish pride and arrogance. It is a consistent failing of many in the political classes to do two things: a) to assume they are smarter than everyone else, and b) to feel they are entitled to act impulsively without consequence (and that impulse is usually born in angry reactions to people and institutions responding in obvious and natural ways, rather than in ways that make the politician’s life easier). Put these two things together and you get a sort of you-talkin’-to-me? politics, which is invariably self-destructive.

The Shumlin administration’s battle with VSEA is not smart, well-considered, or well thought-through. It was born in an act of impulsive chest-thumping. The decision to block a vote in the State Committee is more of the same, and threatens to turn the unnecessary battle into an unnecessary war.

The 2012 election is Shumlin’s to lose. If he keeps playing you-talkin-to-me? politics, he will.

Recently, Lamoille and Washington County Democratic Committees passed resolutions (without dissent) urging the unnamed elected officials (by which was meant the Democratic Shumlin administration rather than, you know, Justices of the Peace…) to back off its public war with the Vermont State Employees Union over its double-time grievance for 80-some employees displaced by Irene, and instead simply allow the grievance process to run its course without the media sideshow. Supporters of these resolutions included an agenda item for a similar resolution to be voted on by the full State Committee at its scheduled meeting today.

New VDP Chair Jake Perkinson, however, had other ideas, and did not allow the resolution to come to a vote (on questionable procedural grounds). He also refused to allow for a 2/3rds vote to overturn his ruling.

Here’s an account via email from someone in attendance (with identifying pieces redacted, emphasis added):

There were 6-10 union members sporting VSEA t-shirts who came to see what would happen.

The agenda was rearranged (on a motion from a Washington County delegate) so [VDP Chair] Jake [Perkinson] couldn’t drag out the meeting to “run out of time” before the resolution could be considered. So Peter Burgess (Lamoille County chair) brought up the Lamoille resolution and Jake ruled it out of order. He said that not all the delegates had received a copy as required by the bylaws 5 days before the meeting. Burgess insisted he had sent out the resolution to all the addresses on the list supplied by the VDP, so if there were errors, it wasn’t his problem.

Article 23 of the VDP bylaws gives the chair total discretion on ruling resolutions out of order. [At the time tht article was adopted, members were] assured, repeatedly, that any action/decision/ruling of the chair could be overturned (according to Roberts Rules) by a 2/3 vote of members present.

Jake insisted that because the issue at hand was not a question of parliamentary law, Roberts Rules did not trump the bylaws, and his ruling would stand.

Bill Sander (Lamoille County delegate and former county chair) asked for a show of hands of delegates present who received a copy of the resolution (most, maybe 7/8ths), and then of those who had not received a copy (a handful, less than 10).

Various people kept trying to address the (bogus) issue of notification (would the non-notified waive objection if given a chance to review the resolution now? Was one proposal).

[Someone else] said, “Look, folks, the real issue here is not about notification. It’s that Jake has received his marching orders. The powers that be have decided they don’t want this resolution considered. So just let the numbers thing go.”

There was more back and forth including several statements about what a sad day it was for the Democratic Party that  a resolution supporting labor could not even be brought up for a vote ([VSEA Interim Director and VDP Executive Committee Member] Conor [Casey] made one, many agreed).

When Jake ruled against more discussion, the Lamoille delegation stood up and walked out, as did the union members who are also members of the state committee.

… A little while later, Jake had called a break while the committee waited for Senator Bernie to arrive. E.D. Jesse Bragg came out to remind folks that there needed to be a quorum to endorse Bernie. Bernie arrived soon after, and a couple of union guys gave him the bullet point of the resolution smackdown. The delegates and the union folks all returned to the hall hear Bernie’s speech about the Fed investigation … Sanders was unanimously endorsed.

Then the meeting was adjourned.

… I cruised by [the post-meeting fundraiser] and there were at least 12-15 people (not counting committee members sympathetic to the VSEA) in the parking lot of the Old Labor Hall waving signs. One said something about “Tyrant Shumlin”; another was against “big wind.”

Wow. You’ve gotta see this. Licensing a “God wants me to beat up the queer kid” culture. Via TPM:

The bill lays out what exactly constitutes bullying, but in one key part it says that the legislation does not prohibit First Amendment rights, and “does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil’s parent or guardian.”

…”I am ashamed that this could be Michigan’s bill on anti-bullying when in fact it is a ‘bullying is OK in Michigan law,'” Kevin Eppling, the father of the bill’s namesake, said in a letter.

For the last three years, there’s been a different “Green Mountain Deadly” banner on GMD for Halloween (last year’s by Julie). This year I totally forgot.

Damn. Too much going on. Sorry. Next year. Here’s a pic of my kid instead.

On the one hand, there’s the push to universal health care, the promotion of an LGBT hero to the Supreme Court, holding the line against Vermont Yankee, and the promotion of wind power…

On the other hand, there’s a steadfast refusal to shift the tax burden onto the wealthy, a media war with the State Employees union seen by many as “dirty tricks,” noises about teachers’ rights to strike, and the promotion of wind power…

Governor Shumlin has proven to be nothing if not ideologically dynamic, but frustrations do keep bubbling among traditional lefty constituencies – frustrations that, in Vermont, could (however unlikely) equal a Democratic Party primary challenge in 2012 or, more readily, a challenge from the Progressive Party – but with health care reform potentially on the line, would any individual or group be likely to give into frustration and initiate such a challenge?

You never know, but we’re going to keep our ear to the rumor mill and keep a running gauge of the political odds of a challenge (based entirely on our highly technical, in-house, science-based, logarithmic, proprietary prognostication thingamajigs). The GMD oddsmaker will run on the sidebar and include links to recent, relevant articles. When enough time passes, we’ll include a link to historical trending.

UPDATE: The Washington County Democratic Committee reportedly passed an identical resolution this week.

(Correct. We had some abstentions, given  that there is a good representation of VSEA in our committee, but no no votes. -Jack)

---

In the ongoing Vermont State Employees Association (VSEA) conflict with the Governor’s office over post-Irene double-time for approximately 90 displaced state workers, the Lamoille County Democratic Committee last week made it known unanimously that they stand with their traditional allies in labor, calling on Democratic Governor Shumlin to stand down and “desist from castigation of the efforts of working Vermonters to seek an adjudication of contractual grievances through proper and recognized means”. Note that resolution does not make a stand on the merits of the grievance itself, it just calls on the administration to cease the public conflict and allow the grievance to play out through normal channels.

The public nature of this conflict and the surprising personal engagement on the issue by Governor Shumlin has been unprecedented, catching many in the labor community off guard. As I reported for the Bridge last week, despite the administration’s protestations that they (in the words of Administration Secretary Jeb Spaulding in his “My Turn” piece for the Freeps) “have no interest in having a public fight with the VSEA,” Spaulding acknowledged to me that it was indeed the administration that leaked the story to the press in the first place. The leak was followed immediately with the full court press by the Governor. For good or ill, Shumlin clearly decided to take on the union publicly over this issue in a big way (Communications chief Sue Allen was going to get back to me when I called the Governor’s office to ask about that decision, but she never did, unfortunately).

The complete Lamoille County resolution after the flip (note: I’m not going to opine on any of this, since I’ve started tracking it as a reporter – just the facts, here)…

RESOLUTION OF LABOR SUPPORT

LAMOILLE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE

WHEREAS;  The Lamoille County Democratic Committee believes that John L. Lewis was correct when he said the “It ill-behooves those who have supped at labor’s table to curse with equal vigor and fine impartiality the forces of labor and its adversaries when they become locked in deadly embrace”; and,

WHEREAS;  The Lamoille County Democratic County Committee believes that the Vermont Democratic Party has benefitted substantially from the support of organized labor over many years; and,

WHEREAS;  The Lamoille County Democratic County Committee believes that working people in Vermont have a right to seek redress of contractual grievances free of any public condemnation by public officials;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Lamoille County Democratic Committee that:

(1) The Committee supports recent and ongoing efforts by members of the Vermont State Employee Association to obtain a ruling from duly constituted authority and a clarification of the terms of its contract with the State of Vermont;

(2) The Committee urges elected and appointed public officials to desist from castigation of the efforts of working Vermonters to seek an adjudication of contractual grievances through proper and recognized means;

(3)  The Committee instructs its Chair and delegates to the Vermont State Democratic Committee to submit this resolution to said State Committee and urge the adoption of a similar resolution by said committee.

Guess it’s time to get on the bandwagon. Here’s the GMD smartphone app. Myself, I still have a dumb phone (I’m cheap), so don’t ask for no help from me. Click here or on the image to go to the download site… and let us know if it works.

( – promoted by odum)

UPDATE: The presser got cancelled. A quick call to the office indicated that the national office had pulled the rug out from under it to retool the issue before public release. I was informed that the press conference would be rescheduled for next week, that Executive Director Wally Roberts had “misread the law” and would come back witha complaint based on campaign spending, rather than contributions.

But that’s not likely. Word is that the Common Cause complaint is based on a reading that does not take into account Anthony Pollina’s complaint during 2008 that this (then) new campaign finance law was (allegedly) unfairly interpreted to his detriment as an independent, by restricting his fundraising based on the primary calendar. Roberts is allegedly basing his complaint on his literal interpretation of the language of the statute, and not the precedent set by Oxfeld v Sorrell.

To cut to the chase: there’s no there there. Common Cause VT did not have it’s ducks in a row, as there are no ducks. Expect this issue to die the straw death.

---

Hm. This doesn’t sound good. From the press release sent out by Vermont Common Cause:

Common Cause of Vermont (CCVT) will hold a Press Conference on Thursday, October 27 at 1 P.M. in the Cedar Creek room of the Statehouse to announce that we are requesting that the Attorney General investigate possible illegal contributions to the Shumlin for Governor campaign. CCVT will release the contents of their letter to the Attorney General and make available printouts of the spreadsheets it used to document its request.

And around we go. Tayt Brooks is (back) out as Executive Director of the Vermont Republican Party and Mike Bertrand is in. Bertrand was one of Jim Douglas’s frequent appointees to positions of power in his administration, regardless of his experience. Commissioner of this, Secretary of that… I dunno. It’s all sort of a blur.

Is it me, or does the list of go-to guys on the GOP bench seem awfully limited? Now we get Bertrand – part of that same crowd, but a name we heard more often earlier in the century – especially when he ran for Secretary of State against Markowitz. He was like the 21st Century first wave Jason Gibbs.

With Jim Barnett in greener pastures, are we destined just to see Tayt Brooks, Jason Gibbs, and Mike Bertrand over and over again (with Rob Roper the only alternative/anomaly?)? Has Neale Lunderville graduated, or we see him back in one of these election-steering roles again (after he runs for Treasurer or Secretary of State following his high-profile gig with the Shumlin administration – thanks, Pete.)?

If the Dems have a problem with not retaining state/institutional memory and going for brand new outside talent cycle after cycle, the Repubs seem to have the opposite problem. Musical chairs with the same dwindling bench (ack, I mixed metaphors again).

You’d think after the recent epic electoral collapse (Dem supermajorities in both leg branches, all three federal officeholders Dem… if not all in name… losing the Governorship), the Vermont GOP would be at least as interested in cleaning house as the Red Sox.

With any luck, maybe they’ll bring back Corey Bliss too.