Hey, remember the POOP Council? The Governor’s unfortunately-acronym’d advisory council on Pathways Out Of Poverty?

Well, it has unsurprisingly acquired a new name — Pathways From Poverty — and has just begun to do its work. And a friend of GMD dropped me a line about something that happened at its most recent meeting.

The gist of it was this: Agency of Human Services attorney Ken Schatz addressed the Council on the subject of the Open Meeting Law. He contended that the Law did not apply to advisory councils such as PFP, but that the Governor wanted PFP to voluntarily abide by the Law with one significant exception: Whenever the PFP meets with the Governor himself, the meeting would be closed.

Confirmation from Chris Curtis, PFP co-chair and attorney with Vermont Legal Aid. “[Schatz] advised that the Council is technically exempt from the Open Meeting Law, but the Governor would like us to observe it.” Except, he added, when the Governor is present.

“I expect the idea is that the Governor would be able to have a free and frank exchange” in a closed meeting, Curtis said.

On the one hand, I can see the rationale. On the other, it sounds very much like Vice President Dick Cheney’s argument for secrecy surrounding his infamous oil-industry-heavy Energy Task Force, convened in the early days of the Bush Administration.

After the jump: Shumlin’s office responds.

Shumlin spokesflack Sue Allen confirmed Schatz’ reasoning (that advisory councils are exempt), and said the same standard had applied in the Dean and Douglas Administrations: “The philosophy is that it’s much easier to give candid advice to the Governor when there’s not a TV camera in your face.”

She added that “we’d be happy to accommodate a change if the Council wants it,” but the Administration would not initiate such a move. Curtis gave no indication that closed meetings with the Governor would trouble PFP members, so the status quo appears to be in no danger.

Here’s what the Vermont Secretary of State’s website has to say about which bodies must abide by the Open Meeting Law.

This open meeting law applies to all boards, councils and commissions of the state and its political sub-divisions (i.e. municipalities), including subcommittees of these bodies. This means the open meeting law governs meetings of selectboards, planning commissions, boards of civil authority, recreation commissions, municipal public library trustees, auditors, listers, etc.

“…all boards, councils and commissions of the state” would seem to be broadly inclusive. But according to Schatz and Allen, advisory councils have been considered exempt for at least the last 20-plus years.

It may be an established idea… but is it correct? I haven’t spoken with Schatz, but I suppose the principle is that “advisory” bodies are less official than regular entities. By their very nature, advisory bodies can’t make any policy decisions. I can see the reasoning. But I’m not sure I buy it.

In reality, it’s doubtful that hordes of reporters would be clamoring for admittance to a meeting of the PFP Council. Unless, of course, you tell them they can’t get in. Which is what the Administration has just done.  

Despite Conservative’s best efforts at promulgating lies, Connecticut has shown that in Real Life, paid sick leave does NOT hurt business.

Using data drawn from a survey of Connecticut employers and on-site interviews, the authors analyzed the impact of the state’s pathbreaking new law. Though lobbyists and some employers in the state expressed concern that the law would negatively affect employers, the report demonstrates that these fears were unfounded. In fact, in several of the sectors most directly affected by the legislation – such as hospitality and health services – employment actually rose.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/…

The full report is a PDF link on that site.

(An interesting possibility to toss into the healthcare cost management discussion in Vermont.  Upsides? Downsides?  Let’s talk about it. – promoted by Sue Prent)

Bloomberg News on the Internet, March 7, 2014, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/… carries a story titled Cheaper Surgery Sends Lowe’s Flying to The Cleveland Clinic which reports that Lowes Inc. is sending employees to a Cleveland Clinic.

To encourage employees, Lowe’s covers the full cost of surgery, as well as travel and lodging for the worker and a relative. The company health plan won’t cover thousands of dollars of unbundled costs at local hospitals.

As a result, Terry White, president of  BridgeHealth Medical, a Denver based benefit manager said:

In some cases, hospitals will drop their prices as much as 40 percent to guarantee a steady stream of patients they wouldn’t have otherwise.

This is market capitalism at its best if you are not in the local medical industry.

It’s win-win-win for patients, employers and the hospital.

It is certain that there will be immense pressure on the legislatures of Vermont from the medical personnel of the state to prevent this practice. The Vermont legislatures should act to assure that all citizens of the state have the benefit of such practices when the medical standards of out of state hospitals meet the standards of safety for Vermont. Obviously, with the permitted anything-goes attitude of right-wing capitalism in this country, an attempt to horn in on this practice by unqualified, unsafe, opportunistic public and private hospitals will occur.

The practice could be of tremendous value to the average citizen of Vermont if qualified and certified medical competence can be assured. Nothing in this writing is or should be read as criticism of specific medical personnel or institutions in the State of Vermont. The writer has great respect for the medical care he has received in this state.

The same comments applicable to this practice must be enabled by federal statutes. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services should immediately begin consideration of certifying hospitals in this regard and modification of pertinent federal statutes.

Barely two days after thirteen more Vermont towns officially voiced their opposition to allowing tar sands oil to be piped across our state, the Canadian government has given the green light to begin reversing the flow in the Enbridge Line 9 pipeline so that tar sands heavy crude can begin its journey to eastern seaboard refineries.

In order to reach U.S. refineries, a most likely route would run right through the state of Vermont, via the Portland-Montreal pipeline, an old and potentially unsafe conduit for the sticky stuff.

Quite apart from the doomsday potential of tar sands oil emissions to put the final nail in the coffin of the biosphere, there is a very real possibility that, along the way, the corrosive sludge will so undermine the integrity of the pipeline that it may rupture from the strain, spilling tons and tons of the viscous toxin out onto Vermont’s lush green valleys.   The result could be an economic and environmental calamity such as Vermont has never seen.

“It is time to send a clear message that tar sands growth stops here,” said Johanna Miller, Energy Program Director at Vermont Natural Resources Council. “In the wake of this Canadian decision, it is crucial that the State Department make it clear that a Presidential Permit, accompanied by a full environmental impact study, be required before oil companies take one more step toward using Vermont as a highway for the dirtiest oil on the planet.”

“The continued devastation of climate change demands that we keep tar sands oil in the ground and out of Vermont,” said Sandra Levine with the Conservation Law Foundation. “This decision brings tar sands oil one step closer to Vermont, but Vermonters are committed to using every tool available, including Act 250, to stop tar sands in its tracks.”

It’s the eleventh hour for proaction to sustain life as we know it, and Vermont is uniquely positioned, in this case, as a surprisingly potent gate-keeper.

the more routes are blocked, the longer it will take to develop one of the world’s dirtiest sources of fuel, and likely the more expensive and difficult it will be to do so. “It’s not a certainty that this resource will be developed, and for the sake of our climate and future, it must not be,” (says Miller) “Vermont can play a meaningful role in this.”

Vermont is also possessed of a unique tool with which to hold the line.  Already the bane of sprawl, strip malls and big box stores, Act 250 could prove to be a hero of this planetary drama as well:

In order to bring tar sands through Vermont and Northern New England, it is likely Portland Pipe Line Corporation would require approval from the U.S. State Department. Pursuant to a September 2013 ruling from the Act 250 District Commissioner in St. Johnsbury, the company would also need an Act 250 permit.

A coalition of the regions strongest environmental advocates,  including the Vermont Natural Resources Council, VPIRG, 350 Vermont, the Sierra Club, the Conservation Law Foundation, National Wildlife Fund and the Natural Resource Defense Council is calling on our most powerful leaders, Governor Shumlin,Senator Leahy, Senator Sanders and Peter Welch to use all of their influence to ensure that this environmentally irresponsible proposal does not escape the most rigorous review.

All environmentally concerned Vermonters should join them in the effort to stop the Vermont phase of this foolhardy scheme.

The inevitable development of a relatively new organization, or the rumblings of further news on the horizon?

That’s the big question about today’s announcement from Campaign for Vermont, the Bruce Lisman-founded, Bruce Lisman-funded, Bruce Lisman-headed “grassroots” organization.

Well, no longer Bruce Lisman-headed, as it turns out.

Louise McCarren, a Charlotte resident with deep experience in public service and private business, has been elected by the board as the chair of Campaign for Vermont (CFV).

… The board also elected Mary Alice McKenzie as vice-chair and secretary, and Tom Pelham as treasurer.

The press release doesn’t say so, but McKenzie and Pelham were actually re-elected to positions they’d already occupied. The only change is McCarren in and Lisman out as board chair. McCarren is another classic CFV “outsider” type; she’s held a number of corporate positions (including President of Verizon Vermont) and has served on a brace of corporate and nonprofit boards, including National Life Group, Fletcher Allen, Vermont Public Television, and Vermont Law School. She was appointed chair of the state Public Service Board by then-Gov. Dick Snelling.

CFV spokesflack Shawn Shouldice says the election of a new chair is a natural move forward: “He [Lisman] has been saying all along that he wants the organization to become self-sustaining.” This includes the very informal beginnings of an effort to actually raise money from sources other than Lisman’s personal Wall Street fortune. Hey, there’s now a “Donate” button on the CFV website! Shouldice says the group has received “some minor contributions” so far.

Which raises the inevitable question — at least, inevitable in the minds of the political media — does this presage a Lisman candidacy for Governor?

drum roll, please…

I’d heard that CFV and/or Lisman had a big announcement scheduled for next week. But before I could even ask if that was true, Shouldice told me that there would be an announcement, and the subject would be the hiring of a paid staff person — an Executive Director. Late last year, CFV had advertised for two paid staff; they’re only hiring the one for now. I didn’t bother to ask for the new staffer’s name, because That Would Be Telling.

So unless this is all a big misdirection play, don’t expect a candidacy kickoff. “He has no plans to run for Governor,” says Shouldice.” He’s been very consistent about that.”

Yes, he has. Of course, the phrasing “no plans to run” leaves open the possibility of a new plan. But personally, I wouldn’t expect it, at least not so soon. I have no idea if Lisman is as self-deluded as other wealthy political failures (Rich Tarrant, Jack McMullen, Skip Vallee), but somehow I doubt it. He stands a better chance of influencing public policy by jumpstarting a plausibly centrist organization than by mounting (and self-funding) a longshot candidacy for Governor against an entrenched and deep-pocketed incumbent.

Still, it’s fun to speculate, isn’t it?  

Hey, Bernie.  There’s about 300,000 to 400,000 missing kids (under 18) in America YEARLY.  Seems to me that if there were 300,000 missing Women or Gays or CHRISTIANS or Polacks or whatever, there would be a SERIOUS EFFORT to stop that.  But, with the kiddies here, I haven’t even heard of a SERIOUS STATEMENT from our governing leaders about this Holocaust of Children.

I think you should take this issue up, Bernie.  Then Lib-er-als will have something they can put their energy into, since they’re not putting it into War and Injustice.

Further, I think you should run in the 2016 Dem Primary with this as one of your issues.  If you run in the Dem Primary, they’ll HAVE TO LET YOU in the Debates.  And Hillary will have to make you her VP.  And then you can go to town in the National Media.  (FOX News will love it)

But really, it is way past time for this nation to pay attention to its children.  They are going missing.

Human/Sex Trafficking has become a BIG BUSINESS.  Slavery.  I wouldn’t be surprised, if this keeps up, that someday Wall Street will list Missing Children on the Stock Exchange.  

Do it, Bernie.

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

1. School Budget for FY 2015. Convincingly defeated and it seemed to be a theme across many towns across the state. The property tax formula that comes from the Legislature probably has to change, as is argued in another post.

2. TIF District. The Moran plant demolition scenario. It passed and I'm glad it did. One hopes there is a finality to this. If not, the Moran plant redevelopment could take on as a pun to Groundhog Day.

3. Increase in tax rate for the general fund. Narrow approval for a small increase. This felt more justified than the school budget. The narrowness of the approval might be something to consider. The mayor can't be guaranteed that he'll get approvals on more increases in the upcoming years if he comes back to the city voters to ask for more. A little bit of tax fatigue but not enough just yet.

4. Referendum on Issuance of Bonds to purchase Winooski River dam under bridge connecting Burlington and Winooksi. Burlington said yes to common sense.

5. Redefining Ward Boundaries. Approved and has to be approved by the Legislature. It won't be a problem. Now it's just a matter of seeing how it will be in practice and whether there is a lot of confusion for voters. 

6. Confiscate weapons in domestic abuse incident. Approved. Needs to be approved by Legislature. It isn't going to happen anytime soon.

7. Charter change to forbid firearms in any establishment with a liquor license. Approved as well. It won't get the Legislature's blessing. 

8. Safe storage of firearms. 3 out of 3 gun-related ballot items approved and by wide margins. There sure were a lot of signs pro and con that littered the lawns and sidewalks of the city.I'll be glad to see those gone. Now the question is, as Sue Prent asked, can an overdue conversation begin on this fraught topic?

Yesterday, Burlington residents voted overwhelmingly in favor of three firearms regulations which seem destined to redirect the entire conversation in Vermont.

Despite a hearty endorsement by Burlington voters, adoption of the new rules seems unlikely at present, since that would require  significant changes to state law, and my guess is that this is more than even the Democratic majority in the legislature is prepared to undertake right now.

Still, the good folks of Burlington have done us all a favor by necessitating a conversation that has long been overdue.

Even on our little lefty blog, the topic has drawn enough heat from both sides to, more than once, bring us close to a meltdown.

We should be better than this, and we will be, going forward.  

There are not two, but many “sides” to this big and peculiarly American issue; and arguments both valid and invalid come from every direction.

One of the best arguments that proponents of “open carry” have is that guns are a reality; and that they already are everywhere, exponentially outnumbering gun-owners; so that it well might be argued that we have no choice but to arm ourselves.

That same argument can easily be turned upside down as the very reason why we must reexamine our fundamental relationship with guns and gird ourselves for change.

That’s where the orthodoxy police try to end any further debate with the “constitutional closer.”  

Rather as the devout are instructed not to question revelations lest they lose their faith, Americans have been taught that any thread pulled from our constitutional cloth will unravel the whole thing, leaving us in a state of naked anarchy.

Personally, I think that is utter nonsense.

We have an open-ended bill of rights precisely because our forefathers came to realize that they were not infallible; and that the passage of time and circumstances cannot help but force new perspectives.  Still they trusted that the founding principles, and the better nature of the people who would be born under those principles, would ensure that the nation remained nimble and just.

Arguing that we cannot now have the difficult and urgent conversations around firearms is yielding to the same sclerotic atrophy that has doomed great nations throughout history.

I can’t accept that without a fight.

The defeat of school budgets in some of Vermont’s largest (and/or most notoriously liberal) cities should provide new incentive to reform efforts in the State House. Governor Shumlin and legislative leaders have already begun tackling the issue; I expect their efforts will accelerate starting today. This is likely to be the hot issue in the 2014 elections — not health care reform.

Especially striking were the “No” votes in Burlington and Montpelier. In both cities, the state property tax imposed massive increases on otherwise tight budgets. (Montpelier’s school board proposed a spending increase of 2%, but taxes would have gone up by 13%.) And in both cities, school budgets were rejected while municipal budgets and other spending measures passed easily.

Well, the Governor did all but invite this outcome when he placed the blame squarely on local school boards. In truth, the current funding system is kind of an echo chamber, with local decisions feeding into the statewide rate, and then the state tax imposing new burdens on local districts. (Shumllin also neglects to mention some cost- and revenue-shifting by the state that’s added to the tax burden.) At this point, we’re better off fixing it than pointing fingers.

I suspect that the dynamics of Town Meeting have limited the spread of any tax revolt. My local school budget was a lot like Montpelier’s: small spending increase but a big tax hike. Plenty of people were upset over rising taxes; but when you hear the whole thing explained by your neighbors on the school board, it’s a lot harder to turn them down. Still, although our budget passed easily, there was widespread acknowledgment that the current system is unsustainable.

People like Peter Shumlin and Shap Smith are smart enough to realize this.

There seems to be a growing consensus for system-wide consolidation; I expect that some sort of consolidation bill will pass during the 2014 session. If not, the Republicans would be smart to jump on the school funding issue and put health care reform on the back burner.

There’d be some hypocrisy in that, to be sure. As one former lawmaker pointed out to me, the current Act 60/68 school funding system was promoted by Governor Douglas and the House, which then had a Republican majority. As my source recalls, majority Democrats in the Senate didn’t much like the plan, but decided to go along because many communities saw an immediate tax cut.

So when people like Heidi Scheuermann and Patti Komline call for “Repeal and Replace,” don’t forget that it was Jim Douglas, Patron Saint of Vermont Republicans, who foisted this system on us.

(Wouldn’t it be nice if our political media occasionally made use of their archives to let us know the history of issues like this? Yes, it would. But they don’t.)  

Add Charleston to the list of towns that passed resolutions against piping tar sands oils.

_________________________________________________________________________________

‘Just got a joint presser from 350.org and the National Wildlife Federation confirming that at least twelve Vermont towns report that they have passed resolutions against tar sands oil being piped through the Northeast Kingdom:

Vermonters again expressed wide concern over the possibility of toxic tar sands being transported through an aging pipeline in the Northeast Kingdom or by other means. As of Tuesday night, residents of at least 12 towns – some of them crossed by the 60-year-old pipeline, others nearby – reported that they had passed resolutions expressing concerns and calling for careful environmental review of any proposal regarding tar sands. The towns include Albany, Barton, Glover, Hartland, Jay, Richmond, Shelburne, Stannard, Strafford, Sutton, Westmore and Wheelock. Several others had planned to consider resolutions as well. To date, 41 Vermont towns have called on our leaders to stand up for the state’s waters, farms, and future against tar sands transport.

____________________________________________________________________________

In St. Albans City and St. Albans Town, Town Meeting Day 2014 was a total rout for incumbents on the City Council and Selectboard alike.

I took particular pleasure in the City’s results, which saw the first female Council member seated in nine years, as Tammie DiFranco defeated Aaron O’Grady in Ward 3.  Also defeated was one-term incumbent Jeff Young, who lost Ward 4 to his predecessor Scott Corrigan.

In the Town, longtime Selectman, Bill Nihan was overwhelmingly defeated by Stanley Dukas; as was Steve Coon, whose seat went to Bruce Cheeseman.  

Of further note, Town of St. Albans voters finally approved a 1% local sales tax.  The primary reason for the sales tax?  Infrastructure pressures from the new development centered on that huge Walmart that just opened in October.  

‘Told ya so.