Had a new experience this weekend: for the first time in my life, I attended a meeting of the Democratic State Committee. Open to the public and media, although I was the only attendee in the latter category.

Sounds tedious, but I actually learned some newsworthy stuff. And, in spite of the occasional outburst of procedural blah-blah, it was a positive experience. The room was full of people who’d voluntarily given their time to help build and maintain a political party. They are Democrats, who believe strongly in the party’s principles and put their belief into action. It was inspiring, really.

(I’m sure I’d get the same impression from a Progressive Party meeting. And maybe even from a Republican Party meeting, if only I could ignore the content and focus on the people.)

(I say “mostly” friendly because I had a heated confrontation with one attendee who vehemently disagrees with my views on a couple of issues. More on that another time, maybe.)

There are a couple of items I plan to write up separately, but here’s a collection of Stuff I Learned:

Look for an early-August primary. Senate Penitent Pro Tem John Campbell told the committee that Vermont’s primary would be moved back, most likely to August 8. In recent years, delays in finalizing primary votes have caused problems with getting ballots to military personnel in time for their votes to count. “We’re stuck,” he said. “If we don’t move it, the feds will.” He pointed to other states that will now have primaries in June as a result of federal law. He doesn’t want to move it back that far, because it would force a much earlier start to campaign season.

We have a red-hot hopeful for Lieutenant Governor. John Bauer is the only declared Democratic challenger to Phil Scott; the party is still open to other candidates, but he gave a strong presentation to the committee. “People seem to think it’s unwinnable,” he said. “‘Phil Scott’s a nice guy with a nice car, and he can’t be beaten.’ But we have a strong party.”

Bauer’s got lots of energy — and enough one-liners to publish a Phil Scott Jokebook. “I look forward to challenging Phil Scott on his views — once I can figure out what they are.” Ba-DUMP-bump. “He’s got a race car and I’ve only got a canoe — but he’s driving around in circles, and I’m moving forward.” Rimshot!

He’s also got a serious vision for the office: a sort of “civic R&D department” that could develop ideas to make our economy and our government work better. Sounds like an improvement on Phil Scott’s “Job For A Day” grandstanding.  

If Bauer is the nominee, he’ll need his energy and his jokes, because he won’t have a big budget. Bauer said he will use the public-financing system, which means a $50 limit on individual gifts. I think the party would like to find a higher-profile candidate, but we could do a lot worse than John Bauer.

After the jump: a telecom rumor, a warning against complacency, and a fix is coming for a public-sector pension shortfall.

An interesting piece of telecom gossip. Campbell was peppered with questions about broadband access in Vermont; committee members from rural areas are hoping the Administration isn’t content to declare victory and stop trying. One committee member, whose name I didn’t get, cited rumors that Fairpoint is “hemorrhaging money” and might have to (again) declare bankruptcy. If true, he said, the telecom firm would be in no position to build more broadband capacity. (And you have to wonder about its ability to deliver any kind of reliable service.)

There was no response to the rumor; Campbell and administration officials assured the committee that broadband-expansion efforts are continuing.

Bracing for battle in November. Party chair Dottie Deans (who kept a firm hand on the proceedings) warned against complacency in 2014. It went without saying that the Dems’ majority isn’t seriously challenged and Governor Shumlin will almost certainly be re-elected; but Deans noted that “when Democrats vote, the Democrats win” — something that doesn’t always happen in non-Presidential years. She said the party will be emphasizing voter registration and Get-Out-The-Vote efforts.

For his part, John Campbell stressed the importance of the Coordinated Campaign. Every Democratic candidate is supposed to pay into the fund, but he said that some are reluctant — particularly those who face no serious opposition in their own races. He noted that the party has built quite an electoral machine, but added that “sometimes people take the machine for granted.” Of paying into the Coordinated Campaign: “I say you’re not doing it just for your race; you’re doing it because you’re a Democrat. It’s essential that we continue with the Coordinated Campaign, especially since the Republicans are doing it now.”

The notion that the VTGOP is showing signs of life was a common theme. The Dems’ data guru John Faas reported that the Republicans have added “about 200 more town committee members. They’re doing stuff at the town level,” which will begin to energize the party from within. Faas also said he’s working to identify possible pickup opportunities in the Legislature and races where incumbent Dems may be in trouble.

Statewide, Deans predicted a strong Republican effort to unseat Secretary of State Jim Condos because of the GOP’s focus on voter registration and access issues.

Public sector pension underfunding. Campbell noted that for years, the state has failed to adequately pay into public-sector funds, and efforts are continuing to close the resulting shortfalls. He reported that State Treasurer Beth Pearce “has come up with an ingenious way” to close the sizeable gap in the fund for retired teachers’ health insurance. He didn’t give specifics, because details are still being finalized and discussions with the teachers’ unions are still underway.

That’s it for now. If any attendees think I got anything wrong, feel free to post a comment below.  

(Well, the weather sure ain’t funny, so I thought I’d post this in defiance of it.  Humor.  Just right as we move towards April Fool’s Day, when it will no doubt snow again.  

Hillary, ala Harry Dean Stanton in Repo Man, giving Putin another blast.  I love Hillary.)

CLINTON TALKS EVEN TOUGHER–AND DIRTIER–ON PUTIN…AP…LA…Just now…

Hillary Clinton let loose another salvo at Vladimir Putin today, and this time her language was even stronger.

“Look.  He’s a dildo dipshit asshole.  I mean, he ought to be put in the trunk of a ’64 Chevy Malibu and driven around LA and then dumped in the worst section where the bums, winos, and gangs hang out,”  Clinton said.  “Is he an old time Communist, or just an Ordinary Fucking Asshole?  Either way, I hate him.  I don’t want no Communists in my face.  No Assholes either.”

Clinton became more heated as she went on, saying:  “There’s these two guys I know in LA.  The Fucking Rodriquez Brothers.  They told me they could take care of Putin for us.  I’m inclined to recommend them to President Obama.  I’m not going to stand here and watch that little bald pecker repo the Ukraine.  And, if I become President in 2017, I’ll call in every debt that fuck-face owes us.  I’ve got the paper on that dipshit.  He’s got billions stashed away, but he never pays his bills.  While my credit, our credit, is spotless.  If we sent The Fucking Rodriquez Brothers over to Moscow with 20 thousand dollars to buy him off, you think the crazy little fuck wouldn’t take the deal?  Hell, he’d hand over the Ukraine and the keys to his own mother’s car.  I can’t believe we’re putting up with this shit.  Shit, I say.  Shit.”

When asked about her vehement language, Clinton replied:  “Look.  I’m going to run for President.  I’m running now.  This is intense.  But my life is always intense.  And I’ve got this code–I will never, through action or inaction, allow some dildo dipshit asshole to fuck with the international balance of good conduct that allows nations to form alliances based on those nations’ desires to move into Democracy at 120 per, nor will I do anything that will undermine the integrity and value of any nation so inclined to put its foot on the peddle of the aforesaid Democratic engine that drives the World on its highway to destiny.  That’s my code.  I call it The Hillary Code.  Everybody should have a code.  But some dildo dipshits do not.  Any more fucking questions?  Shit.”

After a moment of stunned silence, a young male reporter from Haight-Ashbury FOX asked Clinton about her chances in 2016, considering new and to-be-continued Republican allegations that she “enabled” her husband Bill when he was President to dally with Monica Lewinsky and other female White House aides.

Clinton’s answer was firm, almost Presidential:  “Blow me,” she said.

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt

This is a cross-post of the diary written by Allen Gilbert and posted at the ACLU-Vermont page. It's in response to the sudden action taken by the House Government Ops Committee yesterday stripping the protections out of the legislation introduced after the death of Macadam Mason, only the latest death caused by law enforcement deployment of tasers.

Reposted by permission.

 What was thought to be a final look at a Taser use and training bill, H.225, before approval by a Vermont legislative committee turned out to be a bait-and-switch, with a redraft that shifted discretion to law enforcement to use Tasers as they see fit. Gone were protections that the weapons would be used only when lethal force was justified. Ignored was testimony that measurement and calibration of Tasers’ electrical charge are crucial to safe operation. Dismissed was testimony from Taser International’s CEO that cameras recording officers’ actions can reduce abuse. Remaining was language that codifies existing Vermont police Taser policies — which will likely lead to more of the same problems with the stun guns, problems the original bill hoped to prevent.

Bound volumes of research reportsoffered by Taser International to lawmakers as evidence their products save lives.

The Vermont Attorney General’s office, the Law Enforcement Advisory Board, and Legislative Council got together (without the input of advocates who have followed the bill and submitted testimony) and produced the redraft. This new version was unveiled Wednesday morning in the House Government Operations Committee and approved Wednesday afternoon, with no chance for critics to testify except those happening to be in the room when the events occurred.

The five-hour window between introduction of the redraft and passage by the committee contrasts with months-worth of discussion and hearings at which an LEAB draft Taser policy – from which the new bill borrows heavily – was roundly criticized.

Since 2012, the measure for success of a Taser use and training bill has been whether the new law — had it been in force at the time – would have prevented the police Taser death of Macadam Mason in Thetford in that year.

A Government Operations Committee member asked that very question Wednesday when the redraft was presented. The answer is, probably not.

The reason is the redrafted bill’s low “threshold” standard for when police can draw and shoot a Taser. The standard is:

(2)(A) Officers may deploy an electronic control device:

(i)  in response to an actively resistant subject, if there is reason to believe that using another compliance technique will result in a greater risk of injury to the officer, the subject, or a third party;

Examples of actions by an “actively resistant subject” include “pulling away, escaping or fleeing, struggling and not complying on physical contact, or other energy enhanced physical or mechanical defiance.” “Pulling away” can be putting your arms across your chest; “other energy enhanced physical or mechanical defiance” is not defined.

Belief “that using another compliance technique will result in a greater risk of injury to the officer, the subject, or a third party” means that if an officer feels he’s at a higher risk of injury if he pulls out a baton or pepper spray instead of a Taser, then he’s justified in pulling out the Taser. Any possible injuries caused to the subject by the Taser are immaterial.

The U.S. Supreme Court standard for when an officer may draw a deadly weapon is when such force is needed to reduce an immediate risk of serious injury or expected death to the subject, officer, or others. Even if Tasers are viewed as “less lethal” rather than “lethal,” the gap between the two standards is huge. The standard now in the bill is not appropriate considering the possible effects Tasers can have, which include death.

Since the bill has such a low use-of-force standard, more lawsuits involving Tasers are inevitable. So far, Vermont police have spent $80,000 in settlements after being accused of misusing the weapons. H. 225 as now heading to the House floor is inviting more suits. Its loose, permissive standard puts officers and their departments at risk.

And as before, also at risk will be people with disabilities or people suffering from mental health issues. The weapon’s manufacturer says to avoid using Tasers on such populations. But the committee’s bill only says

The use of electronic control devices shall include recognition of the potential additional risks that can result from situations in which subjects have cognitive disabilities or are in emotional crises that interfere with the ability to understand consequences of action. 

Leaving such a determination to officers not versed in conditions resulting from disabilities or mental health issues puts them in a difficult position.

The only protection added to Wednesday’s redraft was one to protect pets. The new provision reads:

(6)  Electronic control devices shall not be used on animals unless necessary to deter vicious or aggressive animals that threaten the safety of officers or others. 

The committee’s approval of the bill came on a unanimous 11-0 vote. It now goes to the full House for debate. That debate will not take place until next week, unless rules are suspended to take it up more quickly.

Interesting words from Shap Smith, Speaker of the Vermont House and political operator of great renown.

They came in a piece by Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz, tanned and rested from a midwinter vacation*, about the pending failure of a bill to mandate paid sick leave for Vermont workers. I say “pending failure” because, although the measure seemed to have broad legislative support, the air has suddenly gone out of its balloon.

*Location unknown, although scurrilous unfounded rumors suggest Dick Cheney’s favorite quail ranch.

The final pinprick was delivered by Mr. Speaker himself:

“I don’t think the landscape right at the moment is conducive to passing the legislation,” the speaker says.

Methinks Paul omitted a verb between “landscape” and “right,” but never mind. The passage I wanted to highlight has to do with Mr. Speaker’s reputation as a master strategist.

As for Smith, he says there’s a reason he rarely suffers defeats on the House floor.

“I do not think the idea of putting a bill on the floor to see whether it can swim to shore is a good idea if you don’t think it has the strength to swim to shore,” he says. “One of the reasons that I’m known as somebody who can get stuff done is that I don’t put things on the floor that fail.”

Mmmm. Oh. I see. So the reason you have a winning record is you never take up fights you might lose. I call that Profiles in Courage, for sure.  

 It’s as if Big Papi begged out of a series against the Tigers by saying “One of the reasons that I’m known as a good hitter is that I try to avoid facing guys like Justin Verlander and Max Scherzer.”

Or Evel Knievel attempting a daring motorcycle jump over, not the Snake River Canyon, but Christy Canyon, because “One of the reasons I’m known as a successful daredevil is that I try to avoid jumping over things I might not be able to clear.”

Or Diana Nyad foregoing the Cuba-to-Florida swim in favor of a Lake Champlain crossing along the route of the Fort Ti Ferry because “One of the reasons I’m known as a distance swimmer is that I only attempt crossings I know I can finish.”

I don’t really think Shap Smith was trying to undermine his own reputation. What I do think is he’s grasping for rationalizations, and in an effort to avoid the truth (Democratic leadership caving to the business community, part no. 4,266,148), he stumbled upon the “Aw, shucks” ploy.

But just for the record, people become “known as somebody who can get stuff done,” not by ducking the tough battles, but by actually getting the difficult stuff done.  

The deLismanization of the putatvely nonpartisan advocacy group Campaign for Vermont continues apace, with the hiring of a new Executive Director — CFV’s first paid staff person. (If you don’t count Bruce Lisman, who effectively paid himself by underwriting the million-dollar-plus cost of the organization through its first three years of existence.)

And to be fair, CFV made an interesting choice: Cyrus Patten, currently director of comprehensive care at the HowardCenter and a clinical social worker by trade. The sum-total of his experience in politics consists of a brief stint in Colorado:

Community Relations

State Representative John Kefalas

November 2008 – May 2009 (7 months)

Consituent (sic) relations, policy research, assistant to the Representative, community organizing/event planning.

Deputy Campaign Manager

People for John Kefalas

July 2008 – November 2008 (5 months)

Volunteer recruitment/training, strategy consultation, canvassing, phone banking.

And yes, Kefalas (now a Colorado State Senator) is a Democrat.

Aside from that, Patten has spent most of his brief adulthood in social services work. Well, that and “Special Events Guy, Scooper, Shop Manager” for Ben and Jerry’s from 2001-2003. How Vermonty!

He’s also got a rudimentary website where he claims to be a “Social Change Agent. Educator. Nonprofit Administrator. Consultant.” And where he throws out a bushel of buzzwords to describe the Wonders Of Cyrus Patten:

I am a systems thinker, focusing on efficiencies in the nonprofit sector.  As a social worker by training, I look at multiple levels concurrently, seeking to eliminate redundancies and break down conventional management assumptions.

Sounds like he’s got aspirations to get out of social services and into a more entrepreneurial form of nonprofit work. Which he has now done. Congrats!

There’s nothing wrong with having aspirations, of course, and theres nothing in Patten’s background to insinuate that he’s not a nice guy. One could question his political chops for running a statewide organization that will need to (1) reinvent itself organizationally and financially, (2) create a public image separate from that of its founder and sugar daddy, and (3) repair its relationships with the state’s political leadership.

Because a lot of folks in Montpelier don’t like CFV. At all.  

The group has repeatedly tried to hog the credit for initiating debate on a wide variety of issues, and hamstrung its transparency agenda by singling out State Rep. Mike McCarthy as an example of conflict of interest, when it only takes a few minutes on The Google to find numerous examples in the part-time Legislature. Aside from that, there’s the whole issue of the baggage associated with its founder, ex-Wall Street kingpin Bruce Lisman, and the pro-Jim Douglas chest-pounding of CFV co-founder Tom Pelham. And the fact that its rhetoric has frequently targeted the state’s Democratic leadership. And the fact that its membership, while including some moderates and a few Democrats, skews strongly to the right.

Quite a lot for a guy with less than one year of experience in the political arena. And none of it in Vermont.

So where does this leave Mr. Lisman? Hovering in the shadows:

“Bruce is still the on the board, but he’s not the chair. He’s just kind of an active participant,” Patten says. “I think he realizes he’s done the heavy lifting in the beginning and it really has been gaining traction. He realizes that this is truly a grassroots-driven campaign, and he wants to give it the legs and freedom to be that.”

Hmm. Maybe Patten does have the political chops after all; there’s quite a bit of first-class dissembling in that single paragraph. “Kind of an active participant,” for starters; I doubt that Lisman will be content as “one among many” when he’s already dumped a million Brucey Bucks into CFV.

Then there’s the claim that “it really has been gaining traction”; I’d love to see the evidence for that. Membership has grown, but becoming a “member” of CFV requires absolutely no commitment aside from signing up. It’s like Vermont Country Store claiming its entire mailing list as its “membership.” As for “gaining traction,” see the list of political missteps above. At the start of this year’s legislative session, CFV got a lot of publicity for its push on ethics reform; but now, that appears to be dead in the water, and CFV’s role is a mixed bag at best: it did draw attention to the issue, but it also alienated many of the officeholders who might otherwise have voted for reform.

The big whopper is “truly a grassroots-driven campaign.” Nonsense. It’s been entirely a Bruce Lisman-driven campaign. If he hadn’t bankrolled CFV, it would never have existed.

Finally, “he wants to give it the legs and freedom to be that,” which kind of implies that it ISN’T “that” now, and hasn’t been “that.” Which belies the “grassroots-driven” claim. And when Patten says “legs and freedom,” he’s really saying that Lisman won’t keep cutting checks forever. Indeed, he acknowledges that “A big goal is to get the organization in a self-sustaining place as soon as possible.”

And if Cyrus Patten’s political experience is a bit thin, well, he has even less experience at fundraising.

I give Patten the benefit of the doubt. Judging solely by his resume, he’s a good guy with good intentions. But he’s got a hell of a lot of work to do.

Campaign for Vermont could succeed; with Republicans continuing to be disorganized, underfunded, divided, and largely irrelevant in the state’s power structure, CFV could become a home for disaffected Republican donors. For them, CFV could be the best way to provide a counterweight to Democratic hegemony, and a tool to keep the Dems from edging too far to the left.

It could. But if it doesn’t establish a solid donor base, a stronger and more independent image, and positive lines of communication with the Powers That Be, it could just as easily begin sliding toward pollitical oblivion.

Either way, I bet Bruce Lisman’s potential legatees are breathing a sigh of relief. For them, the last three years must have been like watching an aging relative give generous donations to some TV preacher.  

(originally posted to Vermont Watch, here; and, cross-posted to iBrattleboro, here)

*Note*: Morgan W. Brown is a recently appointed member of the Vermont Council on Homelessness. The opinions expressed below are solely his own and represent none other.

Several years ago I advocated that courses in the humanities be offered and taught to those within Vermont who might have otherwise gone without the opportunities and benefits of these. For example: people living in poverty; people living homeless; persons incarcerated in jails, prisons or other institutions; people living in the throes of drug or alcohol addiction.

What I had been urging be established was for programs along the lines of the Clemente Course in the Humanities model (clementecourse.org).

The Clemente Course in the Humanities was the brainchild of Earl Shorris, who died in 2012 at the age of 75. The title of his obituary within the New York Times mentioned that he had fought poverty with knowledge (NYT; New York edition; page A24; June 3, 2012; link).

His obituary read, in part, about how he was ” …, a social critic and author whose interviews with prison inmates for a book inspired him to start a now nationally recognized educational program that introduces the poor and the unschooled to Plato, Kant and Tolstoy, … “.

Given the needs and resulting consequences at stake, as well as the current focus these days about doing something more meaningful and lasting to help address drug addiction, crime, incarceration rates, poverty as well as homelessness and the like, it would appear to be high time to finally consider offering courses in the humanities to all of those whose quality of life could well be improved.

The cost of not doing so is being borne out day after day, year after year. Programs and courses like these work and have been proven successful.

One does not have to look very far for examples of these type of programs and how beneficial they are either. An example is the program offered to female prisoners in the state by the name of writing inside Vermont (writinginsidevt.com). According to its Website, “[s]ince 2010, writing inside VT has forged trusting, pro-social relationships with more than 200 of Vermont’s incarcerated women.”

Does it take much more than simply providing courses in the humanities and the like in order to break the cycle(s) of poverty, homelessness, drug or alcohol addiction as well as crime and so on; yes, indeed, it does.

However, one of the longstanding missing components of all of our collective efforts thus far with which to address these and related matters in a meaningful fashion has been the lack of certain educational opportunities being made more available, including the humanities.

If the state were to help invest in providing greatly expanded access to programs along these lines on a much grander scale than might already currently exist to those willing to partake of opportunities for higher learning, including by networking and working with educational institutions across Vermont with which to do so, those participating would not only be gaining knowledge, but also the potential this could afford in terms of greater personal, social, economic and civic power as well.

Whatever the financial investment and other resources that might be needed and involved in order to help provide programs and classes along these lines would be well worth it. Society at large would benefit as well. If we as a society hope to sow and impart knowledge as well as aiding in the growing of wisdom, and then collectively reap the results, we have to be willing to do what is required to plant the seeds and fertilize the process in a fashion that benefits as many as possible.

If we do not, then the underlying causes as well as the ongoing cycle(s) of poverty, addiction, crime, homelessness and hopelessness will never be effectively dealt with and eventually broken, no matter how much funding and other assistance programs are made available in an attempt to do so.

It has been my observation over the years that when there are others who believe in the future of those most in need and also have faith in them, including that their hopes can be realized and their dreams achieved, such persons are in a much better position to be able to begin to do so as well.

Although those previous advocacy efforts of mine a decade or so ago were not successful, it is still my hope that collegiate-level courses in the humanities will eventually be offered, whether in classroom settings or online when and where feasible (or both), on a voluntary and free basis to those who could greatly benefit from these.

Morgan W. Brown is a recently appointed member of the Vermont Council on Homelessness. The opinions expressed above are solely his own and represent none other.

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

I’ve held a small bit of Green Mt Coffee Roasters stock for about 10 years, purchased because it was a local startup that bubbled up and because it had socially conscious policies for employees and coffee growers.   It may still be a good deal for coffee growers and employees, but the company has morphed into an unrecognizable corporate entity that I find repugnant.

GMCR should no longer be thought of as a coffee company (as is reflected in its new name “Keurig Green Mountain Inc.”)  Rather it is a plastic-and-profit-delivery-pipeline. The coffee is okay but lift the curtain on that green mountain image and you’ll find the very Wolf of Wall Street presiding with his pack of banking/industry execs who have come on board as directors.  [Hinda-what the hell happened?]

I attended the GMCR stockholders’ meeting in Burlington this week out of curiosity.  The contrast from 8 years ago was staggering.  At that time their green-guy told me they were near to solving their recycling problem (see below).  In the meantime, the new regime has arrived.  Meet the new boss, Brian Kelley, golden boy newly from Coca-Cola and Jack Welch’s General Electric.  This guy drips humble and nice until he begins his presentation at which time his voice changes and he seemingly salivates describing the brave new (stranglehold) world of beverage delivery.  His pitch would have been hysterically funny as farce had it not been dead serious.

What’s the big deal?   I had a glimmer of  hope that they might’ve made progress on their plastic K-cup-as-trash problem.  K-Cups, those small and growing bigger plastic cups which are cranked out at over 6 billion/year and which hopefully (according to CEO Kelley’s view) would be growing exponentially thereafter.   They are unrecyclable.  One sweet old lady from NH piped up with “well we pull out the contents and recycle OURS, so you CAN do it!”  She did pull contents out of her K-cups and put them in her “recycling bin” but her husband admitted to me that they can’t actually be recycled, among other reasons because they are unworkable at materials recycling facilities.  Rather they go to landfills and assuredly find their way to dead seabird bellies and Pacific Ocean plastic gyres.  Some office-sized pods are incinerated, those in their “Grounds to Grow On” scheme where  you can pay $50 to buy a carton for your office and then ship it to Findlay Ohio, where it’s emptied of coffee (composted) and on to the incinerator.  

The at-or-near-cost price of Keurig machines is the vehicle used to get you hooked on the pods, which IS GMCR’s product; Keurig comprises 90% of their business now and is growing.  A pound of GMCR goes for around $12 in a bag, but in pod form that pound of coffee might cost you around $50. Today’s enlightened citizen can flip a K-cup of his or her choice into the shiny machine, press a button and poof, coffee.  Imagine if they should succeed in invading Italy…

50 K-Cups go to the landfill for every pound of ground coffee consumed!  Are ya listening Moretown and  Coventry?

There’s more.  Near the end of the presentation Mr. Kelly mentioned that GMCR’s coming “2.0” model Keurig will be able to harvest your habits.  NSA-like, they will collect information on what you brew, when you brew it, what time of day, and more.  When asked to elaborate he got a little hesitant and said something about your cell phone lying on the kitchen counter…  

Coffee will become less important in the future;  Keurigs already make tea, cocoa, and hot cider pods but will soon be delivering Campbell’s soup, Coca Cola and whatever other beverage – cold or hot – you desire.   All heated or cooled in plastic.

Some of you might be sensible enough to have one of those re-fillable filter-thingies that you can fill with your own coffee and use in your Keurig.  My advice to you is to hang onto these models, because going forward  (due to DRM protocols and RFID technology) it appears that you will not be allowed you to use them or any pod other than GMCR’s (oops–Keurig Green Mountain Inc’s). In mid-February a company known as Treehouse Foods brought a lawsuit against GMCR for this and other abuses of law, monopoly, etc.  GMCR  Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. – had already pre-emptively sued competitors because they just can’t have other coffee in their machines.  [It’s a 141-page lawsuit].  

I wish that on Monday they had removed “Green Mountain” from their new corporate name, as this company’s values bear little resemblance to Robert Stiller’s proud, progressive little company in Waterbury.  Perhaps someone should create an online cemetery for those once-green-mountain-ish companies like this and Ben and Jerry’s who went down the rabbit hole.  

So, Governor Shumlin has announced he won’t be unveiling his financing plan for single-payer health care until after the 2014 election. Even by his lofty standards, it’s a formidable display of sheer political chutzpah, a full-on crotchgrab directed at anyone who might dare challenge him for re-election. “You’ll know my plan when I tell you my plan,” is what he seems to be saying. “You want some? Come get some!”

Okay, a bit of blogger’s license there. But look: if the Governor was in any danger whatsoever, do you think he’d continue to flout “the statutory requirement to present financing options in January 2013,” not to mention drawing the ire of Republicans and testing the patience of Democrats and Progressives who’ve advanced him a whole lot of credit for his promise of a workable single-payer plan? And the promise keeps on receding into the future. “Re-elect me, and then we’ll talk.”

No, he didn’t say that. Not exactly. But here’s what he did say on VPR’s Vermont Edition last Friday:

“I’m saying to my team, ‘don’t spend a lot of time getting committees that won’t even be the same committees working on something that isn’t going to be voted on anyway, and that we don’t have the answers for yet.'”

Which implies that he’s got a funding plan, or he’s close enough that he could unveil it this year if he wanted to, but ehh, why should he?

Why indeed. Must be nice to be bulletproof.  

Apparently there were some second thoughts about the brazenness of his VPR statement, because by Monday he’d changed his tune:  

“We’re not ready, it’s as simple as that,” Shumlin said at a press conference Monday.

… “All I’m saying is let’s get this right. That’s more important than meeting some arbitrary deadlines,” he said.

“Arbitrary” has, I guess, become a synonym for “statutory.” I’ll remember that when I see a speed limit sign on the freeway. You can almost hear the exasperated sigh in Senate Minority Leader Joe Benning’s reaction:

“I’ll have to confess it doesn’t surprise me,” Benning said Friday of the news that financing concepts had been put on hold.

Yeah, I don’t think it surprises anyone, Joe.

On the one hand, Shumlin’s move is politically savvy: He doesn’t have to subject his financing scheme to a full year of scrutiny and criticism, so he’s not going to. Sure, opponents will be able to attack his nondisclosure; but a defined plan would be a much juicier target. It could even create divisions within the Dem and Prog camps. (I’ve heard rumblings that some Progs are having second thoughts about single-payer because of how it might be structured and paid for.)

On the other hand, hubris is a terminal condition in politics: an excess of confidence leads to complacency, which in turn leads to carelessness (at best) or corruption (at worst). And that leads to defeat.

Back in the early 90s, Canada’s Conservative Party was a dead man walking. After the thoroughly corrupt Brian Mulroney years, followed by the brief and feckless Kim Campbell premiership, the Liberals had a stranglehold on power. But after 15 years of bumblef*ckery and scandal, the Liberals were out and the Conservatives were in. And now, Stephen Harper is remaking Canada in a very fundamental way. I don’t wanna see that happen in Vermont.

And this display of cockiness on the Governor’s part, although it won’t cost him a damn thing in the short run, is a bad sign for the future.

Shumlin talks about the “heavy lift” that will be required to enact single payer. Well, in the next biennium he’ll also be under the gun to deliver some sort of school-funding reform. You don’t think that’ll be a heavy lift as well? Dem lawmakers had best start hitting the gym. If they think the kitchen’s getting a bit warm now, wait till they tackle both of those issues at once.  

Earlier today, I read the single best piece of journalism to date on the genesis of Vermont’s health care exchanges. It’s an excellent reporting job by Neal Goswami of the Vermont Press Bureau; and unfortunately for non-subscribers, it’s behind the Mitchell Family Paywall. If you have access to the Times Argus or Rutland Herald, or can find a copy at a local library, it’s well worth your time.

It’s on the front page of the Sunday (March 9) Times Argus under the title “Vt.’s Health Exchange: The Inside Story.” Goswami conducted numerous interviews with key players, plus one well-positioned anonymous source, and came up with a thorough and believable account of how the launch of Vermont Health Connect went so badly wrong.

Short version: Everyone deserves some of the blame, but no one person or entity is particularly at fault.

Longer version: The whole process was severely handicapped by the court battle over the Affordable Care Act. It was signed into law in March 2010, and set a deadline of October 1, 2013 for health care exchanges to be active. But the legal challenge wasn’t resolved until summer 2012, so work on the exchanges didn’t start until a little more than a year before the deadline. As Governor Shumlin told Goswami: “…obviously no governor or president was going to spend time and a lot of money implementing this law that none of us knew if parts of it would survive a Supreme Court decision.”

And, since Obamacare was a political football in 2012, there was no chance Congress would agree to an extemsion.

The court delay meant there was little time to waste, which meant that any additional setbacks would be doubly harmful. And, of course, setbacks there were. The Administration chose Oracle as its main contractor;

But troubled by setbacks in Oregon, Shumlin dropped Oracle and signed a new deal with CGI… in December 2012. This left just nine months to complete an information technology project that would normally take at least two years, according to an official with CGI.

The Administration stands behind its decision to dump Oracle, pointing out that Oregon’s troubles have been much worse than Vermont’s.

Goswami provides two accounts of what happened from January to October 2013.

CGI says that, due to time constraints, it promised a limited but serviceable site by October 1, with more features to be added later. CGI claims the Administration initially agreed to this, but later added more requirements.

For its part, the administration puts most of the blame on CGI for, as an anonymous government official put it, promising a sportscar and delivering a clunker.

On October 1 the scope of the problem became clear, and more troubles came after the site went live. As Goswami reports,

Facing such mounting challenges, a normal IT project would have seen the launch date extended, or the budget would have gone up to allow for more resources. But the Affordable Care Act had a fixed date and the money was set.

Part of the problem within state government, according to Goswami’s anonymous official, was a division of relevant expertise. The Department of Vermont Health Access had the policy smarts to provide strategic guidance, but lacked the ground-level experience needed to make tactical decisions on business rules and IT. DVHA head Mark Larson sees it differently; he says the single biggest problem was a lack of time.

Since the first of this year, Goswami reports, the state and CGI have put their heads together, clarifying responsibilities and workflow, and renegotiating some parts of the contract. Canceling the CGI contract was considered, but the Administration decided that would cause more problems than it would solve. The two sides now appear to be working much more harmoniously.

All in all, Goswami paints a picture of an extremely complicated project jammed into a very short timeline due to the Obamacare court challenge and Vermont’s contractor switch. After that, relatively minor mistakes had huge consequences. The result was our October 1 disaster and the months of scrambling to fix the system.

No catastrophic management failure, no corruption, no scandal; just a bunch of human beings working under incredibly difficult circumstances — circumstances largely not of their own making.

Could things have been handled better? Sure. But by far the biggest problems were (a) the sheer complexity of the task, and (b) not nearly enough time.

Read Goswami’s piece if you get the chance. It probably does a better job of telling the story than any number of internal or independent investigations will.  

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

UPDATED:

I received an email from Anne Donahue this morning (March 12), stating that she was “unaware of any messages she has received from [me] that did not get a response.” So I dutifully dug through old emails at any account that I may have used to contact her, and I was unable to find any instance where Anne didn’t respond to me. I’ve changed the language below to reflect this.

-Jeremy

In a recent Front Porch Forum post, email newsletter, and newspaper article, one of my representatives in the legislature, Rep. Anne Donahue, noted that she refused a request for a copy of email communications (in this case, with a lobbyist) on principle.

Before I weigh in, I want to briefly share where I’m coming from. My “day job” is doing research and teaching in the fields of computer science and computer security at Norwich University. I consider myself an advocate of personal privacy and have shared my extremely strong feelings about the recent disclosures of the NSA’s behavior in a number of places, including on statewide television.

On the other hand, I am also an advocate of open, transparent, and responsive government. While there are a number of exemptions in Vermont’s transparency laws, I profoundly disagree with Rep. Donahue’s stance that this communication is or should be exempt. Beyond my job at Norwich, I am also on the Selectboard for the Town of Berlin, which means my communications related to Town business are subject to the same Public Records Law. I can’t think of any particular email that I have received from a Berlin resident that would be exempt from release, should someone ask for it. Indeed, my expectation that such emails are publicly available is spelled out at the bottom of every email I send from that account:

Please note that any response to this message may be considered a public record according to Vermont’s Public Records Law.

We elect our representatives to represent us, and we give them the privilege and authority to make decisions about our lives that we do not get to make ourselves. With that privilege comes a certain responsibility to use that authority ethically, wisely, and to the benefit of all Vermonters. The Public Records Law provides each of us the ability to be part of the system of checks and balances, to verify that their authority is used properly. It states, in part:

Officers of government are trustees and servants of the people and it is in the public interest to enable any person to review and criticize their decisions even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment.

Even if a representative makes a mistake–which happens and is often explainable–or suffers an inconvenience from its disclosure, access to this information is our right. Otherwise, we have little way of knowing which of our representatives are doing their jobs and which are not. I would suggest to any citizen who is truly worried about their communications becoming part of the public record to not email their representatives, but to instead call them on the phone and talk to them. Better yet, sit down with them and have a chat over coffee!

What I find to have more substantial chilling effects on citizen engagement are our elected officials themselves. Of the five elected legislators that represent me (two representatives, three senators), only three of them, Sen. Bill Doyle, Sen. Anthony Pollina, and Rep. Donahue reliably respond to my messages, and in the case of Sen. Doyle, this is usually in the form of a phone call within 24 hours. I understand that legislators are busy, especially between January and May. Still, it’s hard to tell if messages are read and considered or just quietly disregarded, however insistent our representatives are about the importance of public participation in the legislative process.

I recently testified to the House Government Operations Committee as an expert in information security about the security of vote tabulators and the need for a robust system of audits for elections. Before I deliver the punchline, I want to be clear that I have a full-time job (thankfully with a schedule flexible enough to allow me to testify) and two young kids. These two responsibilities together, plus my responsibilities on the Selectboard don’t leave me with much free time. I did, however, manage to carve out about 4 hours over two days to testify on a topic in which I have some expertise and about which I feel strongly. It was clear that several members of the committee were uninterested in my testimony, and at least one suggested that I didn’t know what I was talking about and was somehow making things up. Again, I took time out of my days (time that I didn’t really have) to help explain something to the committee while they deliberated on the bill at hand. I left feeling like I had just wasted my time.

This attitude, more than the privacy of emails, dissuades members of the public from participating in the legislative process. I respectfully request that Rep. Donahue change her mind and release the contents of the emails, and that all elected legislators respond similarly to future requests. In this case, notions of email privacy should not trump openness and transparency in our government.