Republican/Independent Richard Mallary of Brookfield, a giant in Vermont politics, has died. He was 82 years old.

Mallary’s political career goes back decades. He ran against Patrick Leahy to succeed George Aiken in the US Senate in 1974. Prior to that, he had been a State Representative from 1961 to 1969 (including a stint as Speaker), and then a State Senator from 1969-1970. From 1972-1975, he was Vermont’s US Representative, having been initially elected to fill the vacancy left by the retirement of Robert Stafford.

Mallary, a former dairy farmer and bank vice-president, returned to the Vermont House from 1999 to 2003 – but concluded his electoral career as an Independent. From the Herald/Argus in 2000:

State Rep. Richard Mallary condemned the Republican Party for its opposition to civil unions as he announced Monday he would run for re-election as an independent.

“I do not believe this opposition is consistent with the fundamental philosophy of the historic Republican Party that I have supported,” said Mallary, 71

Vermont’s political leadership was quick to honor Mallary. From Governor Shumlin:

“He was a man who put the interests of this state and all Vermonters ahead of party politics, a commitment reflected in his support of civil unions that was key to passage of the important legislation. Dick’s passing is a loss for Vermont, and particularly for those of us who respected him and considered him a friend.”

From Rep. Welch:

“Dick Mallary dedicated his life to making Vermont a better place to live and work. In the model of George Aiken and Bob Stafford, he was a humble statesman who put party differences aside for the good of our state. Whether as a select board member, state legislator, state official, Member of Congress, or corporate leader, he selflessly served our state well and will be missed by his family and all whose lives he touched.”

From House Speaker Shap Smith:

“Dick Mallary was the model public servant.  He was deeply committed to upholding the highest values of our state’s citizen democracy. He fought for what was right, not for what would make a good sound bite or campaign slogan.  As Speaker, Dick presided over the Vermont House of Representatives with boldness, foresight and respect for the institution as it was transformed from a 246 seat to a 150 seat chamber. In each office, he served his constituents and his state with true dedication and great honor, inspiring generations of public servants.  Dick will leave Vermont a lasting legacy we should all be proud of.  My thoughts go out to his family in this difficult time.”

Things n stuff:

• Hide the children… Political junkies rejoice, the most famous political-consulting power couple of all (as opposed to…?) is coming to town. Norwich University is hosting a talk from James Carville and Mary Matalin, Wednesday, Oct. 5 at 7 p.m. in Plumley Armory at Norwich in Northfield. The event is free and open to all, but tickets are required. Reserve them by calling 802-485-2633 or email to toddlectureseries@norwich.edu. Click here for more info.

  Depending on who you are, you might view either one of the two as a political hero, you might see them collectively as the love-conquers-all poster couple for how two people of radically different politics can find each other, or you might see them as the very embodiment of an entrenched Washington elite that picks sides of the great ideological debates facing our country the way most people pick whether to be red or black in a game of checkers. Call them Rorschach celebrities (yeah, I made that up just now – if you use it, you’ll owe me a nickel each time).
  

• From the NSS department (no shit, Sherlock): By way of TPM, even Michael Reagan wouldn’t bet on Papa Gipper rising through the ranks of today’s tea-party dominated GOP: “If you evaluate him as a governor today, “the argument him would come from the right, not from the left …He would have trouble getting his own nomination [today], but yet he ended up being the greatest president in our lifetimes.”

  Well, he ended up president, at any rate.

• More to come… I got a truckload of feedback over my diary on the conditions faced by women prisoners at the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility following their ill-advised move from the Northwest facility in St. Albans. Almost all of it overwhelmingly positive (well, except for the comment from this guy, who didn’t even pretend to cover his internet tracks, and turns out to be an employee at the Chittenden facility. Oops). As a result, there is much more coming. Look for my interview with an anonymous whistleblower tomorrow who has worked with women inmates at both facilities. It all gets worse.

The Vermont AFL/CIO elected a new President, denying incumbent Jill Charbonneau a second term. The results were:

Ben Johnson: 3203

Jill Charbonneau: 2548

At 36, AFT Head Johnson may well be the youngest Vermont AFL Chief ever (anybody know?). Johnson’s ascension within and AFL that has been working to enhance it’s limited historical clout signals increasing influence for the Vermont AFT, and likely more resources for the AFL, given AFT’s deeper pockets.

Readers may recall the controversy that arose in labor circles around Charbonneau last election, in regards to Vermont Yankee:

When the IBEW announced it would participate in a press conference opposing the efforts in the Senate to hold Entergy accountable, the AFL did not release a statement.

And yet, here was the newspaper photo from the press conference… (where you can see) see the director of the state AFL-CIO (participating in the pro-Yankee display).

So what was he doing there?

To put it mildly, some members of the AFL Executive Board were not happy.

…After the AFL convention, who directed AFL staff to stand in support of relicensing at the press conference, in defiance of the desires of the group?

According to insiders, that was likely acting Vermont AFL President Charbonneau

I talked about this years ago, but I’m in a mood today so I’m going to rant. There’s a political, conventional-wisdom axiom I’d really like to see consigned to the graveyard. Unfortunately, it’s forever in chic in Democratic Party circles, and adherence to it explains a lot of what has been wrong with the Democratic Party since LBJ.

It’s the most destructive quote in politics:

“Politics is the art of the possible.” -Otto Von Bismarck

As I’ve said in the past, this single line and the sentiment behind it sums up the steady marginalizing of anything that could be considered visionary by so many elected Democrats. It is the poison of cynicism masked in rhetorical elegance. It is both the implicit permission to surrender on policy, as well as a suggestion that working towards truly far-reaching goals is immature and unrealistic.

Why? Because if something becomes too hard to achieve politically, it casually gets dismissed under this Bismarckian axiom as “impossible,” and therefore impolitic. If something requires too much out-of-the-box thinking, it too is “impossible” and tossed out by the purveyors of conventional wisdom and timid officeholders. It’s a one-size fits all cop-out that allows politicians and those who consider themselves to be political sophisticates to cast any failings of vision, courage, and commitment as virtues.

If only the following were as readily quoted:

“Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.” -John Kenneth Galbraith

This can be a cynical quote too – but it doesn’t have to be. It’s actually a much more versatile quote. Sure, it says we are often stuck between a bad choice and a worse one. If you can’t accept the reality of that, you’re simply not paying attention. But that’s neither the beginning and the end of the quotation, nor our politics.

Taking risks is also unpalatable. Pushing politically explosive solutions can be unpalatable. Being the first, lone voice for change in an institution mired in inertia (such as the Congress) is highly unpalatable. In fact, revolutions of any shape, size or flavor are always unpalatable.

But when the alternative is “disastrous,” the choice is clear – or at least it should be, if we can heave the Bismarck nonsense.

Just got a tip from a reader that there are robocalls coming into Vermont from an organization called the Consumer Energy Alliance “touting all the jobs, energy security, and cheap gas prices which, in their view, strip mining for net-energy-loss tar sands oil and piping it from Canada to Texas will supposedly bring.”

The questions were nakedly persuasive, and also asked the gender of the recipient, and whether he was over 50.

The Consumer Energy Alliance is a classic “astroturf” group (i.e. industry-funded operation masquerading as a grassroots-type organization) previously known for lobbying to open up public lands in the US to oil exploration. Lots of references on the web link it to a long time corporate operative named Michael Gibson, but the links that backed that up are dead, so I can’t confirm.

So is this then a “push-poll?” A true push poll targets enough people to make a difference in overall public opinion, and that gets pricey – especially in a case like this, where this is likely a national call (why would Vermont specifically be targeted). This is why, when it comes from a politician, such a phony persuasion poll is probably message testing rather than a full-on push.

But in this case, who knows? There’s a lot of industry money tied up in this, and this sort of communication and message propagation seems to be all that this organization does. It wouldn’t shock to me to find out that this was a genuine push-poll, which means the scale of it must be massive. Anyone else get such a call?

A reminder from GMD pal Bill McKibben about what’s at stake with this issue (and if you aren’t familiar with the issue, click here to get caught up):

We have, not surprisingly, concerns about potential spills and environmental degradation from construction of the pipeline. But those tar sands are also the second-largest pool of carbon in the atmosphere, behind only the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. If we tap into them in a big way, NASA climatologist James Hansen explained in a paper issued this summer, the emissions would mean it’s “essentially game over” for the climate.

Governor Shumlin held a press conference today, thanking Vermont’s “Corporate Angels” who have donated to disaster relief. He was joined by some of  the higher profile angels in an effort, not simply to show gratitude, but naturally to encourage even more support. Via the press release, the angels in attendance (and their corporations’ respective contributions) were:

• Vermont Public Radio President Robin Turnau: $627,000 from a one-day fundraiser.
• Green Mountain Coffee Roaster President and CEO Larry Blanford: $250,000 donation.
• Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont President and CEO Don George: $150,000 donation.
• National Life President and CEO Mehran Assadi: $120,000 donation.
• President and CEO of Subaru of New England Ernie Boch Jr.: $100,000 donation.
• Northfield Savings Bank President and CEO Thomas Pelletier: $100,000 donation.
• IGG Software Inc. President Dr. Ian Gillespie: $30,000 donation.
• Coca-Cola: $25,000 donation

Great stuff to be sure (even if the amount from Coca-Cola probably amounts to little more than the annual income from a few vending machines). It’s encouraging to see that kind of money moving where it’s desperately needed.

Unfortunately, while the phrase “corporate angels” sounds catchy, it’s been taken a few times over.

There is, for example, the Corporate Angel Network, which provides free flights for cancer patients on corporate jets. There’s a Corporate Angels “angel” investing network (not too creative naming there, to be sure). There are “corporate angels” supporting the Global Angels charity, which helps disadvantaged children and communities. There’s a “corporate angels” company that provides administrative support for business. And so on…

I’m just sayin’: don’t forget to Google.

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory… Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea — God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.” – Elizabeth Warren

From NECN:

He’s the most popular politician in Massachusetts and for months Republican Senator Scott Brown has been leading the pack of democratic challengers — until Elizabeth Warren arrived on the scene last week.

The latest poll shows Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren with a slight edge over Scott Brown, 46-44 percent.

To read reports like Nancy Remsen’s, one would think that the transition of the 160 or so female inmates from the Windsor and Northwest prisons to the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility was a bit bumpy, but more-or-less going OK. One could even conclude that everything’s peachy, despite some whining from inmates.

Not so.

When the move was proposed, it was pitched as both a money-saver and a positive for the women. They would have more access to services and programs, by virtue of being in Chittenden County. At this point, though, it is proving to be yet another case where government seeks to balance its books on the backs of its most vulnerable citizens; in this case, a small population of generally working class women who are ofttimes afflicted with addiction issues and histories of domestic abuse.

It was only a year ago that the state still approached this population as one worthy of rehabilitation, rather than simply being locked up in a holding tank and dumped out to possibly re-offend when their sentence is complete. But once the state saw a chance to make money at their expense, the change was fast-tracked by political professionals who didn’t understand the issues, even though the hubbub is that many in the Corrections Department considered it a bad idea.

After the flip to get a glimpse of Vermont’s new paradigm for incarcerating women offenders, including ways that the state may not be keeping its promises.

Cast Into the Pit

The Northwest Correctional Facility and the Windsor Correctional facility – where women inmates had been housed – in many ways were doing it right. There was outside space for inmates. More significantly, there was opportunity for employment. There were jobs in the print shop, in auto repair, in maintenence and the kitchens – there was even a modular home-building program in the St. Albans facility that could lead to certifications in any number of skilled trades. The inmates not only learned skills that could help them find employment (and not re-offend upon release), they also learned to work together.

It’s important to remember that women inmates are different than their male counterparts. Many of these women have zero work experience, from having kids early and staying home with them. Many have been financially dependent on boyfriends or spouses – in some cases, abusive ones. Many of these women will end up back in bad situations when they are released, simply because they see no other option. Supporting them in breaking out of these cycles and providing them education and hands-on skills to be self-sufficient are crucial goals, and should be the measure of any serious corrections system.

As far as the physical space went in the previous facilities, some of the rooms were like bad dorm rooms with sets of bunkbeds accomodating as many as 6 inmates. Some rooms were singles and even had televisions. All the women had ready access to outside space. Inmates could mingle freely. Although they were prisoners, and their freedoms and privilege were rightfully restricted, they afforded a measure of fundamental respect and privacy as an obviously necessary precondition for meaningful rehabilitation.

Now, it’s a different story.

The Chittenden Facility is a jail that was not designed for long-term sentences – and while most inmates are in for around 40 days or less, there are long termers sentenced to several years. There is 1 small classroom, a weightroom and a gym.

There is almost no employment, besides a handful of jobs in the kitchen and maintenence. No facilities for skills training and development.

There is also no meaningful outside space. “Outside” consists of a small stretch of grass with a basketball hoop. Inmates can go outside 3 times a week (if it’s not raining) but are strip searched everytime they re-enter, as drugs could conceivably be passed over the fence to them. Interaction between prisoners is restricted to those within their unit (20-40 inmates), meaning inmates in some cases have been cut off from important friendships they had developed in the previous facility.

Since bleach is not allowed, the inmates are sleeping under sheets soiled and yellowed by the previous male occupants. Women have to approach guards for each individual tampon or pad, since the paper could conceivable be used to roll cigarettes. Inmates cannot flush toilets without asking guards.

The women are crammed into rooms holding double the capacity they were intended for. Despite a specific clause in the legislation authorizing the move which specified that inmates would not be housed in the gym, that is precisely what is happening while improvements are being made.

As far as educational programs, they have dwindled to a trickle. There are plans for basic workplace training, possibly some motorcycle maintenence – but nothing on the scale of what was done at the St. Albans facility. Legislators and advocates were assured that they would have access to programs outside the facility in Chittenden County, but at this point it’s unclear which inmates would even be allowed to leave and under what circumstances.

It’s ugly – and according to scuttlebutt, the political interests that pushed this change were warned by Corrections professionals that there would be this kind of trouble.

Understand two things: one, of course this is prison, so it’s not supposed to be fun, but these women have had their physical and rehabilitative situations radically changed. It’s bad enough to start out in a shithole, but these women were being worked with and rehabilitated. Trained. Educated, given a basic degree of respect and dignity on which they could rebuild themselves into better people. Now, that has been pulled out from under them.

Just stop and consider for a moment the psychological effect that must be having.

There are promises, sure; programs in the community, a greenhouse. Some of these things are paid for, some are not. There is money for plumbing, window and gym improvements. There is a grant being written to find federal money for another building to give these women something to do by returning and expanding programs and easing the crowding issues that have already emerged.

Considering the budget situation in Washington, however, hanging hopes for improvement on federal money strikes me as a pipe dream. The fact is, this is not going to get meaningfully better soon, given the simple fact that this facility was never appropriate for the purpose for which it is now being used, and never will be. Period.

It’s All About the Money

Publicly, the Shumlin administration sold the move as a good opportunity for the inmates, but also as a financial boon to the state. By consolidating the women and opening up more space elsewhere, more of Vermont’s male prisoners (currently housed in Kentucky prisons at an extra cost to the taxpayer of somewhere in the low-$20ks per bed) could be returned to Vermont to serve their sentences. In this way, it was pitched as a moral, not simply a financial, good.

In fact, I’m told that the number of inmates who have been returned from Kentucky is no greater than the number that could already be absorbed by pre-existing vacancies in the Windsor facility.

So, who is filling up the other beds? What wasn’t discussed in public statements, but did come up in the House Institutions Committee was the opportunity to lease space too the US Government to house federal prisoners to the tune of about $55k per bed. That’s a big, big incentive to get the women out and leave a few more Vermont prisoners in Kentucky facilities.

But sadly, it was never an either/or scenario. Clearly, federal beds could have been completely seperated from the women’s facility in St. Albans, making the move unnecessary. It just would’ve cost some of that money they were bringing in.

Bottom line: 160-some working-class, sometimes-addicted, women criminals weren’t worth spending the money on – or even worth making less money to accomodate.

Yuck. As a Vermonter, I’m ashamed.

It’s time for the Legislature’s Corrections Oversight Committee to get serious. The deference to the administration is unseemly. They can make noise, ask tough questions. This is a good group (Reps. Emmons, Haas, Heath, Lippert, and Sens Sears, Ashe, Fox, Hartwell and Snelling), they know better – they just need to understand that it’s past time to demand accountability. When the adminsitration makes a claim about money that is being saved by warehousing women this way, dig into those numbers. How much less would we net if we put some of that money back into the population of inmates bearing the burden of that savings, all in order to return to a paradigm of rehabilitation?

I encourage folks to contact your elected  officials on this. Use the little “raise your voice” icon below for an email form keyed to your Representatives and Senators.

Not the end of this. Stay tuned.