Category Archives: local/regional

Norm McAllister in the dock again. Son opens mouth, inserts foot.

local/regional, , , , ,

Suspended Senator Norm McAllister is once again scheduled to answer charges of sexual assault and trafficking beginning on August 10 in the Franklin County Courthouse.

There is much fault that could be found with the way in which Mr. McAllister’s first trial was prosecuted, including the fact that the victim was forced to testify for many hours before the curious eyes of the press, while Mr. McAllister was allowed to sit the whole thing out without saying a word or even glancing at the assembly. It must be hoped that justice will be better served in the upcoming trial.

Norm Mcallister’s son Heath McAllister has, in the meantime, given us ample fodder for discussion with his comments to the media this week.

Defending his father, Heath is quoted as saying

“You’d have to believe he went from a loving husband of 43 years to some kind of animal…”

I agree that it is unlikely that Norm McAllister woke up one day at the age of 60+ and became a serial abuser. When an old man is discovered to be engaging in such behavior, it is almost certain that the pattern of abuse began many years earlier, and that there are other victims who simply have never come forward.

Heath McAllister went on to say that people are making too much of the extreme youth of the alleged victim.

“That’s not a big deal. You want to be disgusted that she was 19 and he was 63, knock yourself for a loop,”

Even if we accept his version of the story, in which she was 19 (not fifteen or sixteen, as she alleges) when the sexual contact began; according to her testimony, she weighed only 85 pounds, which is why he could easily pick her up and sling her over his shoulder like a bag of grain. The idea that she could “consent” to the relationship is outrageous. Now, at twenty-one, she is still a wee slip of a pretty girl, unlikely to consent to being violated by a portly, balding old man.

Apparently Mr. Heath McAllister sees nothing wrong with this picture.

That speaks volumes about the culture in the family, perhaps even in the McAllisters’ circle of friends.

The coup-de-grace, though, is this final admission:

“Did my dad talk like a pig? Sure. I don’t know how many men — what the hell, I’m in the list,” he said. “There’s been moments where if you took what I said out of context, it would sound horrible.”

The culture of misogyny and exploitation hangs heavy in those words. He thinks this is perfectly normal and acceptable.

Locking the perpetrator of such crimes away from vulnerable populations is only part of the remedy for sexual abuse; and, statistically, our society has a poor record of accomplishing even that much.

The real need is to address the underlying culture that enables such behaviors, interrupting the pattern before it takes hold among a broader community of family and friends. The simple reality is that women and girls raised in a culture of exploitation and abuse seldom seek or receive help. Captive to the culture of their tormenters, they simply accept that this is what they must survive.

The women who have spoken out about their experiences with Mr. McAllister deserve our respect and the same indulgence we allow to wartime victims of PTSD.

It is the very least that we can do.

Disadvantage: Zuckerman campaign.

local/regional, , ,

With less than a month to go until the Vermont Democratic Primary, I got a concerned call from one my Democratic friends who is supporting Dave Zuckerman (P/D) for Lieutenant Governor.  She had just learned that Dave’s campaign was denied access to the vote builder data base by the State Committee, and she wanted me to explain to her ‘why?’

Knowing that in a similar situation, Bernie Sander’s national campaign had been given access to the Party data base, I told her that I thought she might just be mistaken about the facts, but I said I’d see what I could find out.

So, after a little research, I reached out to Executive Director Conor Casey who confirmed what she had heard, and graciously agreed to answer a few questions for me.

As you can well imagine that voter data base has tremendous value to a campaign, allowing it to spare hard-won and often precious few fundraising dollars by sending literature and making calls only to voters likely to support the candidate. Without such select data finding voters susceptible to the candidate’s message is a little like looking for a needle in a haystack at so many cents per blade of straw.

Under contractual rules established by the national committee, access to the data base is provided to the campaigns of eligible candidates at a price; and he said that, even though the State Committee had endorsed him, the Executive Committee had decided that Senator Zuckerman did not qualify as a “bona fide Democrat” for that access.

This specific language seems to be the sticking point, and Conor quoted it for me from the contract:

“State Party shall provide all information in the State Party Voter File to all bona fide Democratic candidates for federal, state and local office in the state for both primary and general elections except that State Party shall not be obligated to provide such information to candidates in a Democratic primary in which there is a Democratic incumbent running for re-election. Such information shall be provided to candidates at a reasonable cost and upon such other reasonable terms and conditions as the State Party may deem appropriate provided that such terms and conditions are applied equally to all such bona fide candidates.”

The question of course is who exactly can be described as a ‘bona fide’ Democratic candidate.

Merriam-Webster defines ‘bona fide’ thusly:

1 : made in good faith without fraud or deceit <a bona fide offer to buy a farm> 2 : made with earnest intent : sincere. 3 : neither specious nor counterfeit : genuine.

Since the term ‘bona fide’ does not appear to be capitalized in the National Committee contract, I think we can assume that it represents a judgement call for the State Executive Committee rather than a status with legally defined parameters.

Conor said the decision to deny access to the Zuckerman campaign was based on his intention to run in the General, if successful in the Primary, as a P/D rather than as a full-throated Democrat or a D/P.

I then spoke with Sen. Zuckerman who told me that, in light of access to Democratic voter data given to Bernie by the Democratic National Committee, he didn’t quite understand why his campaign was not deemed similarly deserving.

In 2006 and 2012, when Bernie was running for the Senate, he competed in the Democratic Primary, but then chose to run in the General as an Independent. He was apparently still allowed access to the voter data by the National Executive Committee during the current Democratic Presidential Primaries.

Sen. Zuckerman, who is prepared to run as a P/D in the General (not a plain Progressive), questions why Bernie can be viewed by the Party as a ‘bona fide Democrat’ for purposes of access to the data base, but Zuckerman cannot. In closing our conversation he offered the following comment:

“While I think it is unfortunate that they have made this decision, my campaign is going strong, people are responding well to my message of social, economic and environmental justice.  People are more interested in policy and substance than establishment party politics.”

I spoke with Conor one more time and asked him to explain the difference between Sen. Zuckerman’s status viz-a-viz the Democratic Party, and that of Bernie Sanders. I was still trying to understand that ‘bona fide’ bit.

Conor explained that as Bernie always ran as an independent, he actually had no other official party status to conflict with the Democratic designation. It was the view of the Executive Committee that Sen. Zuckerman’s relationship with the Progressive Party represents a conflict of interest with regard to securing the data base against unauthorized sharing. He was quick to say that it wasn’t that the Executive Committee didn’t trust Sen. Zuckerman himself, but it was felt that too many members of a competing party, as Zuckerman volunteers, might legitimately have access to the data, even though they, too, would be bound by the confidentiality agreement attached to every purchase of the data.

Conor pointed further to the access to Progressive Party voter data that Sen. Zuckerman has but his Democratic opponents do not, as somewhat compensating for his loss of access to the Democratic voter data. Of course the volume of that Progressive Party data is dwarfed many times over by the data base in the possession of the Democrats.

And it can be reasonably argued that this is the Democratic Primary (not the General), in which, by definition, Sen. Zuckerman is only running as a Democrat. So his disadvantage in this regard, as compared to the other candidates remains considerable. Furthermore, the Democrats obviously prefer that he compete in the Democratic primary rather than give them a third party competitor (a so-called ‘spoiler’) in the General.

In the end there isn’t much Sen. Zuckerman could have done to satisfy that elusive requirement of ‘bona fides,’ but I had to point out to Conor that the Senators’s voting record in the Legislature is much more supportive of the Democratic agenda than is the voting record of certain ‘Blue Dogs’ who freely obtain access every election cycle to the voter data that Sen. Zuckerman is being denied.

With that Conor had to agree, musing out loud that perhaps there would be some merit to questioning the Blue Dog’s claim to ‘bona fide’ status…whatever that is.

My can of worms opened and duly released, I must thank both Conor and David Zuckerman for their cooperation with my not entirely satisfactory efforts to get to the bottom of this voter data dilemma.

Scott Milne and his axe grinding campaign

Business, local/regional, , , , ,

In a recent statement, Republican US Senate candidate Scott Milne, reacting to the massive futuristic “utopian” city David Hall is planning for Vermont, makes it obvious he views the entire New Vista issue through his own peculiar personal lens. Milne zeroes in almost exclusively on his pet issue in his 2014 run for governor: alleged “overreach” by regional development boards and Act 250.milnesaxe

For a number of years Milne and his business partner (and campaign funder), attorney David Boise III have been attempting to build a mixed use development project on land they own in Hartford, Vermont.

The Quechee Highlands project, which borders Interstate 91 in Hartford, has wound its way through the development review process and various court cases for a number of years. After a defeat in one contentious hearing several years ago an angry Milne remarked: “I’m going to try to figure out if I’m going to do anything, and if I do, it’s probably going to involve more lawyers, and it’s just going to continue to brand Vermont as a bad place to do business,” Although the project recently won a significant court case, hurdles remain — along with apparently some bitter feelings on Milne’s part.

Milne’s comment (below) on the massive thousand-acre multi-town New Vista project was part of an ongoing batch of local and statewide candidates’ reactions gathered up by Nicole Antal, who follows this issue for the Daily Upper Valley community website.

“Although I appreciate the candor of folks who are whispering about it not being right — because “it’s inspired by Mormons” or because it could attract hardworking Republicans to Vermont and upset one-party rule — particularly in Windsor County, [only two of the towns targeted by New Vista are in Windsor County]  I hope we will get folks with those prejudices out of the way as judges, juries, or regional planners — so Vermont can carefully and soberly review this idea.“

Not sure what he even means by “the candor of folks who are whispering.” But Milne  could have taken the time to educate himself about the project’s origin and found that early on it was David Hall himself who said the project was partly inspired by his Mormon background, although Hall has maintained that he does not want the LDS Church’s official involvement. The official LDS (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) reaction to the project can be found here.

Generally, the reactions of all dozen or so Republican, Democratic, and Independent candidates for local and state offices indicated a basic level of caution over the massive project and sympathy for community concerns. And all save Milne seemed thankful to have the Act 250 development review process in place to regulate the process.

Let’s unpack his comment a bit. Milne alone of the candidates contacted fails to comment on objections to the size and scale Hall’s proposed population of up to 20,000 residents for the self-sufficient city/state he has in mind for the rural area. Without evidence, Milne implies New Vista will not get a fair hearing due to “one party rule — particularly in Windsor County” and suggests Democrats are acting out of fear of what Milne thinks would be an influx of “hardworking Republicans.”

While the contest he’s in is a low-key senate campaign for now, Scott Milne is again a man running with his own little axe to grind — a personal dislike, perhaps even a hatred of regional planning boards and the act 250 development review. One wonders how he thinks becoming a US Senator will solve his local development issues. What axe would he be able to wield? And how sharp would it have to be to cut through the red tape of local and state control?

 

Burlington’s Open Meeting Problem

local/regional, , , , , ,

‘Sounds like it’s time for Sec. of State Jim Condos to bring his celebrated
Transparency Tour to the big city of Burlington.

I used to think Franklin County was the poster child for dodgy open-meeting practices, but this week, Miro Weinberger and company seem to be giving FC a run for its money.

On GMD, we’ve long questioned the wisdom of locating F-35 fighter planes in the densely populated area that is Burlington Airport. We’ve read the well-articulated concerns of neighbors and the glaringly deficient conclusions of officialdom.

We know that Burlington probably wouldn’t even have been considered for the siting if it were not for the concentrated efforts of Senator Leahy, the Chittenden County political elite and the development community, which seems to play a central role in local decision making.

Even assuming the best of intentions on the part of all of these interested parties, legitimate public concerns always seem to get short-shrift.

When such a controversial topic is discussed before City Councilors, one would think there would be special care taken to ensure that the rules governing open meetings are scrupulously observed, even to the point of over-compensation.

Even though the notice posted announcing the meeting stated that “no Council business will be discussed,” a quorum of Councilors was present (the minimum number of Councilors necessary to conduct Council business), and that of and by itself triggers the ‘open meeting’ requirement and all the rules associated with an open meeting.

To say that no Council business would be discussed is a bit disingenuous in any case, as a presentation by the Guard would undoubtedly involve some mention of the F-35 siting and questions and answers of interest to the public who are engaged on either side of the issue.

It is my understanding that, to remain within the confines of Open Meeting Law, either the public must be free to attend, or the number of Councilors in attendance must be below the number required to conduct a legal vote. If a quorum must be in attendance, the Council has no choice but to gavel a meeting before the public.

After that, if it can be justified under the limitations governing open meetings, the Council may go into Executive Session, excluding the public from the conversation. But there are strict rules governing the circumstances under which Executive Session may be convened. I believe the only allowable reasons are to discuss a city employee or legal matters which my be adversely affected by premature disclosure. They should be prepared to summarily explain why Executive Session is justified, and they must come out of Executive Session if a vote is to be taken.

In any case, maintaining public trust should be paramount in any question of excluding citizens from a Council gathering.

While the Secretary of States office is relatively powerless in enforcing open meeting rules, Jim Condos has recognized that Vermont has a problem in that area, and initiated his annual “Transparency Tour” not long after he took office.

Since receiving a polite reminder of the obligation to follow the open meeting rules a couple of years ago, I am happy to say that the City of St. Albans appears to have become much more conscientious. Apparently, the same cannot necessarily be said of Burlington.

As I have discovered, there is little legal recourse for the aggrieved in the event of an open meeting violation, so it is not surprising to learn that

“None of the community members…are currently pursuing any action.”

EB-5 “ponzi” brokerage Raymond James: Flashing blue lights in the rear view mirror

Business, local/regional, , , , ,

The Vermont Commissioner of the Department Financial Regulation, Susan Donegan, has announced a $5.95 million agreement with Raymond James Associates, a Florida-based securities broker-dealer. brokerwhacking

This is the brokerage firm implicated in the massive Jay Peak EB-5 ponzi scheme allegedly perpetrated by partners Bill Stenger and Ariel Quiros. The pair face a variety of federal and state lawsuits and are accused of misappropriating $200 million EB-5 immigrant investor economic development funds.

Federal and State lawsuits allege the brokerage house broke securities regulations by arranging illegal access to EB-5 immigrant investor funds.  Quiros’ ready access to these funds played a pivotal role in the complicated illegal eight-year scheme to flow money away from the mandated EB-5 targeted development at Jay Peak, Burke Mountain Resorts (formerly Q-Burke) and other NEK EB-5 job creating projects.

In a press release announcing the settlement Vermont DFR Commissioner Donegan explained: This agreement provides for the payment of $4.5 million to the appointed federal receiver in the case SEC v. Quiros for the purpose of reimbursing possible claims by investors. Additionally, $200,000 will be paid to DFR for the cost of the investigation and $1.25 million will be paid to Vermont’s general fund as an administrative penalty.

The broker agreed to the settlement terms but is not required to admit to or deny the department’s allegations. DFR’s Donegan has said the brokerage had “inadequate written supervisory procedures” for collateralization of margin loans. The Commissioner pointedly notes the firm ultimately profited from the Jay Peak EB-5 fund transactions.

Well, the $5.95 million payout that Vermont DFR got may sound like tidy sum money, but look at it this way: it is less than what Raymond James pays their CEO Paul Reilly. His total pay package for 2015 is estimated to be $7.8 million (up 37.7%) and all four top executives at the firm made over three million each in 2015. Last year the company recorded an annual income of $502.1 million, up 7 percent, not exactly proportional to the boost its CEO got.

The firm also has a long trail of fines paid out over the years. Lax supervisory procedures, such as those mentioned by Commissioner Donegan, appear to be a feature — not an aberration — at the brokerage house Ariel Quiros chose to help build his complex web of alleged financial fraud.

In 2007 Raymond James was fined $2.75 million by the National Association of Securities Dealers for failing to maintain an adequate supervisory system to oversee the sales activities of over 1,000 producing branch managers working in offices throughout the United States.

And in May 2016 the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc.(FINRA) fined them a record-setting $17 million for widespread compliance failures in the brokerage firm’s anti-money laundering programs.

(FINRA, the Wall Street funded industry watchdog, is the successor to the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. [NASD]. It is a non-governmental organization that regulates member brokerage firms and exchange markets.)

 Raymond James Associates reportedly is pleased that a guilt-free settlement was reached with Vermont DFR. No doubt they are happy to be clear of this latest little bit of unpleasantness — and it must seem a bargain price at only $5.95 million! moneygo1

The amount will likely not satisfy the EB-5 immigrant investors seeking green cards, and it won’t do a thing to put the NEK economy back together again.

The settlement is simply the cost of doing business for a brokerage firm like Raymond James — on the level of a speeding ticket for the rest of us. And there is no admission of “wrong doing,” so no points accumulated on their brokerage “driving licenses.”

Given the firm’s history, there’s no evidence that such a penalty will even make its managers wary enough to look in their rear-view mirrors for flashing blue lights.

Norm McAllister assaults the system…and gets away with it…again.

local/regional, , , ,

So, accused rapist/sex trafficker Norm McAllister will remain on the Republican primary ballot for senator even though his petition has been found to be deficient.  I hear fellow Republican candidate Carolyn Branagan’s cry of indignation and I share it!

Mr McAllister must be some sort of human detector for weaknesses in Vermont’s judiciary and legislative systems.

So far, he has succeeded in exploiting no less than five significant failures, and he hasn’t even come to trial yet to face accusations made by two more women.

1) The lack of meaningful protections for the vulnerable in the private workplace.

2) An apparent culture of “don’t ask; don’t tell” in the statehouse, where the extreme youth
of Mr. McAllister’s omnipresent ‘intern’ should have raised concerns and led to timely interventions.

3) The lack of a meaningful ethics policy governing legislators.

4) The lack of adequate provision in court for the PTSD disability common to victims of sexual abuse.

5) The lack of effective vetting practices to validate candidate petitions.

I’m sure there are more, but these spring most quickly to mind. Do not look for a grasp of reality anytime soon from this man because both Franklin County and the state of Vermont have yet to demonstrate any ability to bring his arrogance and his appetites to heel.

Update: Is this what scuttled the McAllister trial?

local/regional, ,

As I have already said elsewhere, I sat in disbelief last Wednesday as the Prosecution dropped the charges of multiple sexual assaults against suspended senator Norm McAllister.  This, after putting the fragile victim through something like five hours of clearly painful and humiliating public testimony while the accused, seated with his back to the curious crowd, was spared the need for any account of himself.

I was further dismayed to see so little concern over the decision expressed by conventional media. Emphasis seemed to rest on the Defense’s unchallenged assertion that McAllister had been “vindicated.” Attorneys for the two sides shook hands amicably and left the courtroom without really explaining what had happened.

The victim was simply abandoned to the tender mercies of public speculation.

It was therefore more than a little heartening to finally hear a piece on VPR this afternoon that showed more empathy for the victim than was exhibited in the immediate aftermath of the aborted trial.

From VPR, we learned that the Prosecution had made the decision to drop the case after the Defense pointed to something that the victim “lied” about in her testimony. We are told that the victim felt question asked was “too personal” and, in any case,  irrelevant to the case; but the prosecutor, nevertheless, decided to withdraw the charges when the victim admitted that she hadn’t answered truthfully..

I think I might know what this is all about and it really was a very poor reason to abandon the case. If I am mistaken, I would really like someone to set me straight.

Toward the close of the cross-examination, she was clearly reaching the end of her emotional tether.  Perhaps realizing she was that close to breaking, the Defense began to pressure her about physical evidence of the crime on her body, and in rapid succession she said, “no,no, no” to every intimate question that was asked.  Her body language indicated to me that they had hit a wall of resistance to any further indignity.  She’d had enough.

The other possibility that occurs to me is that the Defense succeeded in persuading the Prosecution that they could dispute a detail of the first attack as she described it, by referencing her Facebook page.

In her testimony, the victim said that her ponytail had been dyed purple at the time of the first attack. At the break, I overheard the Defense, first discussing among themselves; then,with the Prosecution, that this was “impossible” because photos on her Facebook page showed her with a purple ponytail a year later but not in any of the photos on her Facebook page that date to the time of the first attack.

Having had a teenager, I know, as probably most people do, that these colors can be applied rather spontaneously and disappear or are rinsed away rather easily. She could very well have had a purple ponytail at the time of the first attack too, but not been photographed with it.

It is, in any case, the kind of detail that could easily become confused in the memory of a girl suffering the mental anguish of rape and trying to suppress that memory in order to keep it secret.

If this is what caused the Prosecution to drop the charges, it is a pretty poor reason.

Either way, the inconsistencies in her testimony could have easily been explained by the Prosecution as consistent with PTSD from sexual abuse.

An Environmental Double-Header in Montpelier

local/regional,

This ought to be good!

On Wednesday evening in Montpelier, Vermont Conservation Voters and the Vermont Natural Resources Council will present the first comprehensive debates for BOTH parties on environmental issues.

As much of the nation broils in record-breaking heat or grapples with water shortages, the environment is finally recognized by both parties (at least in Vermont) as a topic of public concern.

Congratulations to VCV and VNRC for pulling this thing together. it must have been like herding cats.

Enough said; here are the details:

Montpelier, VT – Vermont Conservation Voters (VCV) and the Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC) will co-host a gubernatorial candidate debate on key environmental issues facing the state this Wednesday (6/22) evening in Montpelier. The candidates will be asked to share their environmental priorities and plans for addressing significant issues facing Vermont — including clean energy and climate change, cleaning up Lake Champlain and other waterways, toxic chemical contamination, healthy forests and wildlife, and sustainable communities. With environmental issues of interest to so many Vermonters, and with candidates who will likely provide very different visions for how to tackle these issues, this event should prove interesting and informative for Vermonters heading into the August 9th Primary Election.

What:          Gubernatorial Candidate Debate on Environmental Issues

 
Who:           Candidates Phil Scott, Bruce Lisman, Sue Minter, Matt Dunne, and Peter Galbraith; Hosted by VCV & VNRC; Moderated by VTDigger’s Anne Galloway.

 
When:         Wednesday, June 22, 5:30-8:30 p.m.;

 

Welcome Reception 5:30-6:30pm; Republican Candidates Debate 6:30-7:30pm; Democratic Candidates Debate 7:30-8:30pm

 
Where:        The Chapel in College Hall at the Vermont College of Fine Arts, 36 College Street, Montpelier

Smack in the middle: New Vista, candidates and a lobbyist

Business, local/regional, , , ,

Intrepid blogger/reporter Nicole Antal, who writes in the Daily Upper Valley community website, has written her sixth story about David Hall and New Vista for her Very Vermont column.

Antal, who was first to break the story, has now compiled how local and statewide candidates and office holders stand on the proposed massive project. Hall is the Utah-based engineer/developer and Mormon (member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, aka LDS) who has set out to build a 20,000-resident utopian community in Sharon (the birthplace of LDS founder Joseph Smith) and several surrounding towns. Plans for his futuristic New Vista and descriptions of the proposed community make it sound, at least to me, like a benevolent real-life version of Zardoz.keepitnice2

Although they were contacted twice by Antal, gubernatorial candidates Minter, Lisman, Galbraith,[update: Peter Galbraith commented 6/16 on New Vista on Reddit.com in response to question ] Paige, and Ericson did not respond. Phil Scott and Matt Dunne responded by email.

Dunne expressed a strong desire to preserve the character and quality of Vermont life and says the Act 250 process should support that goal.

Phil “listen and learn” Scott wants to “learn a little more about this curious project to make sure it’s a good idea for the community and the state.” He wonders if “perhaps there’s a good idea in here somewhere.” And, he says, “Like any other developer, they [New Vista] would have to follow the rules and regulations laid out in Vermont’s laws, so we’ll have opportunities to learn more.”  Funny, I notice Scott just can’t quite bring himself to mention Act 250 here in a positive context. Perhaps there’s a good idea in Act 250 after all, Phil.

The area targeted by Hall includes Vermont House districts Windsor-Orange 1 (Royalton, Tunbridge) and Windsor-Orange 2 (Sharon, Thetford, Norwich, and Strafford);  Antal contacted and got responses from all the legislative candidates. It is well worth reading the candidates’ full comments on the Daily Upper Valley website.

All of the local respondents (three Independents, one Republican, and a Democrat) indicated degrees of caution and skepticism over the wisdom of plunking down New Vista and its 20,000 people in rural Vermont. Another notable common thread was how they all seemed thankful to have the Act 250 regulatory process in place. As far as I know New Vista is not far enough along to have become involved in the Act 250 development approval process.

District 2 Republican House candidate David Ainsworth also notes the Act 250 requirement and adds he is “a little bit apprehensive about it [the project’s scale]” but couldn’t resist adding this: “But one of my biggest concerns is the overreaction and putting in a lot of regulations that will restrict everyone else’s opportunities to do things.” Have futuristic utopian city/states, throughout history always favored fewer government regulations and low tax states? I guess he fears Vermont might lose out on the coming boom in utopian city/state developments to New Hampshire.

Nicole Antal’s ongoing effort to get candidates and elected officials on public record early on in this process couldn’t come at a better time:  it looks like David Hall will begin a more systematic wooing of Vermonters’ support.

Recognizing a lucrative opportunity, Montpelier lobbyist/PR man Kevin Ellis reportedly solicited Hall for his business and offered his services. Ellis will be making connections and smoothing the way for the high-density 20,000-resident New Vista development. “This may be a great idea,” Ellis says. New Vista, he believes “…would inject millions of dollars and lots of new people into communities.” He could also add, but doesn’t, that the “injection” of dollars and lots of new people (20,000) would permanently, radically change — basically destroy — the existing rural character and lives of a large part of central Vermont.

Luckily we have a record of what the candidates say about New Vista now, let’s see what happens when long-time Montpelier lobbyist and PR ace Kevin Ellis sweet talks them in the years to come.

For now, says Ellis, David Hall is (under his guidance) “reaching out to local officials and residents.”  And later, should the need arise for any state rules or regulations to be adjusted favorably to the planned development by the legislature, long-time Montpelier lobbyist Kevin Ellis probably wants “to be in the middle of it.”

Hmmm,right ‘smack in the middle of it,’ that sounds familiar…

Man with no-name: “Baxter’s over there, Rojo’s there, me right smack in the middle”

[Yup, somebody gets a fistful of New Vista dollars]

Man with no-name: Crazy bell-ringer was right. There’s money to be made in these parts.

Gubernatorial forum on a bleak and bloody Sunday

local/regional, , , , ,

It was a polite crowd of about sixty Franklin County voters who braved the terrible morning news, cold and rain to shuffle into folding chairs and listen to four gubernatorial candidates discuss the issues.

The candidate forum at St. Paul’s in St. Albans was hardly a partisan pitchfork convention, as Phil Scott, noteworthy for his absence, might have expected. An empty chair at the table was the only reference to the missing Lieutenant Governor.

Once the rules of engagement were laid out by representatives of “Rights & Democracy” (organizers of the event), the candidates were invited to give a three minute introduction of themselves.

To his credit, Matt Dunne, who was first to speak, used his three minutes to remember the 50 individuals who were gunned down overnight in Orlando.

After the other candidates had been given their opportunity for a stump speech, the candidates were each in turn asked to answer the same set of questions about jobs and economic opportunity, healthcare, affordable housing, education, energy and the environment. Each response was limited to two minutes and most of the candidates respected the time limits.

Those questions were followed by audience questions, submitted earlier on pieces of paper, with only one-minute allowed to each candidate for a response. There still wasn’t enough time left for all of the audience questions.

In light of the news of the day, I had submitted a question on assault weapons and I know that one other person had asked about efforts to address the dangerous climate of hate and bullying that has recently been in the news. Neither question made the cut.

Of the four candidates, Sue Minter and Matt Dunne made by far the best impression, giving clear and well considered responses that demonstrated their personal strengths as candidates.
Sue Minter is the candidate of greatest public service experience and Matt Dunne projects the dynamism of a quick and entrepreneurial mind. Both came across as capable, comfortable and socially adept.

Peter Galbraith projected passion and determination, and most of his ideas appeared to differ minimally from those of the other Democratic candidates.

The thing that fired him up the most and drew considerable applause from the audience, though,  was the issue of industrial scale wind, to which he is vehemently opposed.  In fact, his energy policy has a great deal more to do with curbing consumption than replacing it with renewables. I have to say, I see a lot to like in that perspective, since there is almost no national effort toward reducing consumption, and emphasis in that area is badly needed.

Bruce Lisman, as well, is opposed to industrial scale wind. He may in fact be opposed to even small scale wind projects, but I am not at all sure. Many of his responses were a little vague, as I remembered from the last time I heard him speak a couple of years ago. He tended to go off question a bit in order to address topics that were of more interest to him, but that left some listeners, like myself, struggling to follow his train of thought.
I believe that, unlike the other three, he does not support increasing the minimum wage even to $12.; but again, he didn’t really say so.
On the subject of marijuana legalization, Mr. Lisman is opposed while the other three support it with some variation in roll-out and management.

All of the candidates were eager to answer the last question the afternoon, “What would you have done differently from the current governor?’  Sue Minter replied that she would not have promised something she couldn’t deliver, and Matt Dunne also said that he would have handled the health care rollout very differently; drawing on his own experience to avoid the software disaster that plagued the Governor’s efforts.  Mr. Galbraith would have given a better account of what the Governor’s healthcare plan would  cost and how he would have paid for it.

Mr. Lisman said there were many things he would have done differently from Governor Shumlin, but pressed with just a minute of response time, he settled for saying that he would have been “truthful.”

I thought it was too bad, given the implications of the day’s headline tragedy, that no opportunity was taken to discuss Vermont’s singularly lax gun regulations, or the growth of hate crimes and bigotry throughout the nation.

I keep hearing that we don’t have a gun problem in Vermont; and many would argue that we don’t have a hate crime problem here, either; but bullying is very real even in Vermont, and we are not an island. Sooner or later, gun ‘problems’ will be visited on Vermont as surely as on our neighbor states.

…But I guess we’ll have to save those issues for another election cycle.