( – promoted by Sue Prent)

Dear Governor Shumlin,

When you signed equal pay legislation into law last year, you said: “This law continues Vermont’s proud history of demanding equal treatment and basic fairness for all working Vermonters and their families.” We are proud of our government when it supports women’s rights and gender equity – and we expect it to do so. We therefore ask your administration to publicly support Vermont establishing earned sick days for all workers this year.

Women are the majority of workers in the industries and jobs that tend to lack paid sick days. While making up nearly half of the country’s workforce and doing two-thirds of caregiving nationally, about half of women are denied crucial rights at work – rights that would support our dignity, livelihoods, and families. By supporting paid sick days, we support equity and work with dignity for all. All people have the right to care for ourselves or our family members, or deal with the effects of domestic and sexual violence, without risking our livelihoods.

We officially invite you to pledge your support at the Women’s March for Dignity on March 8, 2014 – International Women’s Day – in Montpelier.

Sincerely,

[click the jump to see long list of signers]

Organizations:

350 Vermont

Peace & Justice Center

Rising Tide Vermont

UE Local 255-Unionized Workers of Hunger Mountain Coop

United Academics

Vermont Anti-Racism Action Team

Vermont AFL-CIO

Vermont Federation of Nurses & Health Professionals

Vermont Homecare United-AFSCME

Vermont-NEA: The Union of Vermont Educators

Vermont Network Against Domestic & Sexual Violence

Vermont Progressive Party

Vermont Woman Newspaper

Vermont Workers’ Center

Vermont Works for Women

Voices for Vermont’s Children

Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom-Central VT

Individuals*

Martha Allen, President, VT-NEA

Tiffany Bluemle, Executive Director of VT Works for Women

Regina Christianson, Rector at Calvary Episcopal Church

Mari Cordes, President, Vermont Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals

Representative Johannah Donovan

Eliza Cain, Co-Owner of Red Hen Baking Co.

Representative Michelle Fay

Carlen Finn, Executive Director of Voices for Vermont’s Children

Natalia Fajardo, Immigrant Rights Organizer

Rickey Gard Diamond, Editor of Vermont Woman

Mary Gerisch, President of Vermont Workers’ Center

Stephanie Hainley, President of Burlington Business & Professional Women

Representative Susan Hatch Davis

Representative Helen Head

Carin Hoffman, former Commissioner for VT Commission on Women

Lucy Ijams, Bennington Pastor

Elizabeth Jesdale, President of UE Local 255

Trinka Kerr, Chief Healthcare Advocate at VT Legal Aid

Peter Knowlton, President UE Northeast Region

Representative Jill Krowinski

Karen Lafayette, VT Low Income Advocacy Council

Sarah Launderville, Executive Director of Vermont Center for Independent Living

George Lovell, President of VT AFL-CIO

Eliza Lucozzi, Pastor of North Congregational Church of St. Johnsbury

Donna Macomber, Executive Director of Women’s Freedom Center of Brattleboro

Elaine McCrate, UVM Professor of Economics & Gender Studies

Jean McDonald, Rector of St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church

Representative John Moran

Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, Chair of Vermont Progressive Party

Susan Ohlidal, Episcopal Church of Vermont

Marjorie Power, Older Women’s League

Representative Barbara Rachelson

Representative Kesha Ram

Janice Santiago, Employment Advocate at Women Helping Battered Woman

Heather Riemer, AFT Vermont

Stephanie Seguino, Professor of Economics at UVM

Amanda Sheppard, VT Homecare United-AFSCME

Rachel Siegel, Executive Director of Peace & Justice Center & Burlington City Councilor

Naomi Smith, Executive Director, WomenSafe

Representative Tom Stevens

Reverend Auburn Watersong

Representative Suzi Wizowaty

Representative Michael Yantachka

Denise Youngblood, President of United Academics

Senator David Zuckerman

*Organizations listed for identification purposes only

Individuals Who Signed on from Across the State:

Valerie Abrahamsen

Kit Andrews

Laura Austan

Cathy Austrian, UE Local 23

Arlene Averill

Carolyn Baker, CIRCLE

Sheyanne Baker, NALC Branch 521

Beth Barndt

Adam Barnett

Alex Barnett

Colleen Beal

Carol Beatty

Elizabeth Beatty-Owens

George Bennis, Sr.

Jen Berger

Marissa Bieg

Stauch Blaise

Theodore Blodgett

Karrie Bowen

Tina Bradley

Amy Brady

Carolyn Bronz

Tonda Bryant, AWARE

Geraldine Burke

Kimball Butler

Mary Cain

Bill Capasso

Nick Carter, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England

Jonathan Chapin

Jill Charbonneau, VT State Labor Council AFL-CIO

Peter Chase, Episcopal Priest

Ana Cimino

Mary Claire Carroll

Betty Clark

Cim Clark

Meghann Cline, Parents for Change

Wendy Coe

Selene Colburn, Vice Chair, Vermont Progressive Party

Josie Colt

David Connor

Kristen Connors

Kathleen Cooper

Judy Copa

Donavee Copenhaver

Liza Cowan

Linda Cramer

Karen Cribari, Youth Services of Windham County

John Crowley, VPIRG

Kelly Cummings

Joanne Davidman

Sarah Davis

Melissa Davis-Bourque

Mary Deaett

Corey Decker

Briee Della Rocca

Partice DeMarco

Lindsay DesLauriers

Karol Diamond

Liane Duda

Joan Eckley

Marie Eddy

Cassandra Edson

Dawn Ellis

Laurie Essig

Sylvia Fagin

Marigo Farr

Gus Feldman

Kieran Ficken

Rachael Fields, Vermont Veterans Home

Lois Flanders

Anna Fleishman

Colin Flood

Greg Forcier

Emily Fredette

Naomi Freedner-Maguire

Jessica Fuller

Sandra Gaffney

Joseph Gainza, Vermont Action for Peace

Jamie Garvey

Tara Gauding

Anna Gebhardt

Connie Godin

Pauline Gosselin

Steve Gould

Anna Grady

Rachel Grandon

Dawn Hancy

James Haslam, VT Workers’ Center

Rebecca Haslam

Jeffrey Haslett

Mark Heald

Kathy Heikel

Robert Henderson

Devin Henry

Jennifer Henry

Steve Hingtgen, Small Business Owner

Matthew Hogan

Steven Howard, Legislative Director for VSEA

Tonya Howard

Phyllis Humez, state employee and VSEA member

Daniel Jantos, North Chapel Universalist Society

Rachel Jolly

Annie Jordan

Margaret Joyal

Mary Lou Judas

Kate Kanelstein

Taylor Katz, Free Verse Farm

Renee Kelly, Umbrella

Jon Kennedy

Mary Kirkpatrick, RN of Local 5221

Meg Kuhner

Karen Lafayette, VT Low Income Advocacy Council

Damon Lane

Jennifer Larsen

Amy Leavitt

Amy Lester

Rebecca Lendvay

Alice Leo

Deborah LePore

Lodiza Lepore

Arleen Levinson, Vermont Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals

John Lewis

Kiera Lewis

Laura Limoges

Shela Linton

Marcia Liotard

Traven Leyshon, VT AFL-CIO

Brenda Lindemann, VT Alliance of Retired Americans

Vicki Litzinger

Jean Lowell

Majka Luksza

Kris Lukens, Voices Against Violence

John MacLean, IWW

Alicia Maddox

Trevor Madore

Corey Mallon

Darya Marchenkova

David Martin

Autumn Martinez, Chief Steward UE Local 255

Jeri Martinez

Elaine McCrate, UVM Professor of Economics & Gender Studies

Ned McEleney

Matt McGrath

Jordan May

Karoline May

James McGurn

William McMaster

Gina Mangiafico

Stephen McArthur, CIRCLE VT

Wendi McNaughton

Kerby Miller

Mark Montalban

Ryan McDonald

Andrea Mills

Phillip Mixon

Ann Moore

Ashley Moore

Denise & Michael Moore

Representative John Moran

Donald Morrison

Jessica Morrison

FaRied Munarsyah

Major Munson

Rilla Murray

Jennifer Nachbur

Sam Nelis

Joyce Niksic

Adam Norton

Lee Oberg

Erika Osorio

Jean O’Sullivan

Romni Palmer

Krista Panosian

Emma Paradis

Charles Parent

Amanda Payne

Deborah Peaslee, Resource Specialist at Mary Johnson Child Care Services

Kristin Pepoon

Cindy Perron

Sarah Petrokonis

Gloria-lee Phelan

Heather Pipino

Anna Pirie, AWARE

Avery Pittman

Bethany Pombar

Jo Poquette

Karen Porter

Kate Post

Nancy Potak

Anisa Potvin

David Przepioski

Kelli Prescott

Sharon Racusin

Diane Ravenscroft

John Reese Jr.

Virginia Renfrew

Sheila Reed

Jane Reese

Dottye Ricks

Susan Ritz

Denise Rixie

Michelle Robbins

Jami Robertson

Marianne Robotham

Sharon Rotax, Women Helping Battered Women

Amy Ruddy

Susan Rump

Lee Russ

Gina Ruth, Women Helping Battered Women

Amanda Sanderson

Greg Sands

Sandra Schlosser

Don Schramm

Paula Schramm

David Shiman

Ellen Schwartz

Natalie Seelig

Megan Sheehan

Sophia Shems

Rebecca Sheppard

Patricia Shine, Lyndon State College Professor

Griffin Shumway

Kyle Silliman-Smith

Lindsay Simpson, Vermont Public Health Association

Susan Skolnick

Ivan Smith

Jennifer Smith

Ikey Spear, Women Helping Battered Women

Moise St. Louis, Educator

Carmyn Stanko, UE Local 267

Kevin Stewart

Representative Tom Stevens

Brandon Stroup

Sarah Suscinski

Alison Sylvester

Linda Tarr-Whelan

Mason Taylor

Kimberly Thevenet, Women Helping Battered Women

Catherine Thomas

Nina Thompson

Christina Tran

Karen Tronsgard-Scott

Julie Theoret

Dwight Tuinstra

Judith Unger Murphy

Edwin Wageman

Jessica Walker

Goldie Watson

Reed Webster

Marlene Wein

Joyce Werntgen

K.C. Whiteley

Sue Prent

Paij Wadley-Bailey

Marian Wagner

Michael Walker, Teamsters Local 597 CCTA Bus Driver

Nancy Welch

Susan Werntgen

Willow Wheelock

Bill White

Chris Wilusz

Kellyann Wolfe

Dana Woodruff

Lynn Wurzburg, Umbrella

Barbara Wynroth

Representative Michael Yantachka

Judith Yarnall

Dinah Yessne

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

Well now, Fletcher's TMD was a bit less awkward than Westford's!  Gaze upon this Freep report:

Westford residents voted overwhelmingly, 67-37, to approve a non-binding resolution asking Treasurer Charlotte Vincent to resign Monday night at town meeting.

Selectboard Chairman John Quinn introduced the resolution, saying Vincent had failed to execute her duties as treasurer.

“We have a town report without financial statements because they were not submitted on time,” Quinn said. “She is not performing her duties and it’s impacting the Selectboard and town auditors.”

Quinn further indicated issues with Vincent go back many years, which does make me wonder why she keeps getting re-elected.  That said, in small towns it is certainly difficult sometimes to find people willing to step up for certain posts and once you've got somebody in there it can be even more difficult to dislodge them.  That's especially true if voters aren't aware of problems with how that person is doing the job.

Now, being fair and balanced, the paper spoke to other people in town who thought Quinn's approach was “unfairly harsh.”  One person went the hyperbolic route, using words like “public flogging” and “bullying.”

You know what's a public flogging?  Being flogged in public.  You know what's bullying?  Being actually pushed around and stuff.  Being called out is none of that, and a necessary part of open government.

The Treasurer is an elected official and has duties to perform.  The position is not only extremely important to the town, but is also one that is ripe for abuse.  Elections are one way to provide oversight, but if the person is moderately clever at hiding things–say, by not providing timely information–there is little the Selectboard can do under Vermont statute during the Treasurer's term.

I don't know the details about how the Board has addressed concerns in the past.  But I completely understand why the Chair might feel compelled to put this on the floor to highlight problems so at the very least the next time voters have to choose they will be informed.  All part of the political process, and shows the value of having Town Meeting as opposed to merely casting an Australian ballot.  People should appreciate it since the Board is trying to make sure the town's finances are transparent.

Sometimes that stuff is uncomfortable.  Who said democracy was easy?

ntodd

A few moments at Town Meeting in Fletcher today irritated me.  Things were said that I thought kinda exemplified the shortsightedness and selfishness we as a nation demonstrate on a regular basis.

First, in the Selectboard's proposed budget we wanted to provide 4% raises for the handful of people who work for the Town fulltime.  For several years those good folks have only gotten cost-of-living increases, despite the good work they do on vital services for our community.  To be sure, some people in this economy don't even get COLAs or aren't even lucky enough to have jobs, but that isn't a compelling argument to not give other people what they deserve.

So anyway, somebody made a motion to reduce that raise to a mere 1.5% for cost-of-living (another motion put it at a less-stingy 2% to “compromise”).  People who supported amending the budget essentially boiled it down to “I'm skilled and valuable, too, but only got a 1% raise.”  It's certainly understandable that folks would find another person getting a larger raise to be unfair, particularly since any monies we pay out comes from their tax dollars.

But let's put that all into perspective for a moment.  We're talking about roughly $7500 amongst a few people in a $950k budget.  That's 0.7% of the budget, and is fractions of a penny in a person's property tax bill.

We're also talking about our long-serving Town Clerk/Treasurer, who has been on the job for almost three decades, is extremely efficient and makes sure the Town runs smoothly.  Her job includes doing all the necessary recording for legal property transfers that people rely on, and meeting payroll for our other valued employees who plow, salt and sand, and otherwise maintain the roads at all hours of the day and night, all year long, so the rest of us can safely get to our jobs and support our families.

Fortunately, after 40 minutes of debate, the 2% proposal was shot down 69-41, and the 1.5% proposal was loudly rejected in a voice vote.  I'm still a bit surprised that so many people were willing to deny a trifle to somebody they rely upon.  

I'll note that there was a time I actually took a 20% pay cut when our company wasn't doing to so great, but I still didn't resent somebody somewhere else getting a raise.  Isn't that the kind of “socialist” thinking that the wealthy decry: “don't try to take away my money just because you don't make more”?  I wonder what it would be like if more people realized we're all worth more, and celebrate those who get what they deserve as a good starting point.  We won't get anywhere without prosperity bubbling up.

The other thing is related in that people were concerned about the school budget and how much money we might have to spend to address a serious space and facilities problem as our student population grows.  A couple people felt that pre-K was unnecessary (one also suggested it's not mandatory from a legal POV, but the State will likely be changing that soon), so why are we spending money on that when we need it for the older kids and it's the parents' and/or grandparents' responsibility anyway.  Oy.

Obviously that hits home since we have one child in pre-K right now–he'll be there for another year before hitting kindergarten–and another who will be enrolled in 2015.  Just from my personal perspective, I'm rather insulted that members of our community see no value in our children getting public education as early as possible.

But beyond that, they are completely missing just how important it is for all of us:

Nobel prize-winning economist James Heckman supports the investment of public dollars in early childhood education out of urgent concern about the low skills of the U.S. workforce. He fears a continuing decline in skill level in the coming decades, with a disastrous loss of U.S. productivity and economic competitiveness. He concludes that it makes “sound business sense to invest in young children from disadvantaged environments,” since quality pre-Kindergarten programs “generate substantial savings to society and…promote higher economic growth by improving the skills of the workforce.”

Heckman argues that remediation in schools and for young adults who have failed in school, like GED certification and public job training, are both more costly and less effective than quality early learning programs. Therefore, money invested in early learning for at-risk children is more cost effective than money spent later to compensate for earlier disadvantages.

In its influential 2002 report, Preschool for All: Investing in a Productive and Just Society, the Committee for Economic Development (CED), an independent research and policy organization ofsome 250 business leaders and educators, presented a business case for federal and state governments “to undertake a new national compact to make early education available to all children age 3 and over.” Education should be viewed, says the CED report, as an investment, not an expense, which will increase economic productivity and tax revenues, while diminishing crime. CED also argues that it is both morally and ethically unacceptable to fail to safeguard the health and well- being of all young children.

Indeed, it has been suggested that:

• Effective pre-k programs reduce costly grade retention and special education services

• Better-prepared pre-k graduates make kindergarten teachers more effective, which reduces costs

• Early childhood programs stimulate the local economy

Studies have shown that every dollar we invest in early education ultimately gets us a return if anywhere between 4 and 17 dollars.  That makes the nickel and diming some people find so seductive really look like chump change.

We had a lot of good questions and comments today, and it was great to see so many people attend Town Meeting and run for school board this year.  I'm just a little disappointed that we heard so much about tinkering in the margins whilst alienating people, to very little positive effect for our community.

I hope that we can eventually impress upon everybody the need to make the necessary investments in our children, as well as the people who serve us all so well.  I think the two boards are trustworthy stewards of our community resources and do very well to avoid any profligate tendencies.  But it's also a pretty intuitive business maxim that you have to spend money to make money.  We ought to do more of that locally, not to mention at the state and national level.

ntodd

Results are in from Montpelier's election. With about 2400 ballots cast, and contested City Council races in every district, here are the results:

Mayor

Hollar (I) 1525

Hallsmith 782

Council D-1

Bate 401

Hooper (I) 357

Council D-2

Guerlain (I) 441

Guertin 315

Shadis 69

Council D-3

Turcotte 394

Jones 278 

School Budget

Yes 1130

No 1211 

My impression is that the mayoral race was closer than expected. Among people I talked to, most people agreed with the issues that Gwen Hallsmith raised (for example, over 1600 people voted for the state bank, Hallsmith's pet issue) but were unanimous that given the disarray she presided over when she worked for the city she would have been a disastrous choice for mayor. 

The austerity candidates in Districts 2 and 3, incumbent Thierry Guerlain and Justin Turcotte, won handily; Guerlain had two challengers, neither of whom ran much of a campaign, and their total came fairly close, but not close enough to say that vote-splitting among the opposition made a difference.

District 1 was close and it is quite likely that the late publicity that Andy Hooper, a genuinely nice guy, received for unguarded comments in some e-mails on the Hallsmith affair made a difference in that race.

As usual, every other proposal but one passed overwhelmingly. The one exception was the school budget, where even a small budget increase would have led to a large percentage tax increase. It's back to the drawing board for the school board.

I continue to doubt that Montpelier voters are as conservative as the Vibrant and Affordable Montpelier faction on the Council. Winning candidate Dona Bate took a progressive, pro-housing position and I hope she is able to advance those issues. Meanwhile, in upcoming elections early and committed work will be needed to return Montpelier to a more progressive vision of what the city can and should be. 

    Today at my Moretown Town Meeting, we, as a community, passed a non-binding advisory resolution requesting that the Select Board, in 2015, place an article on the warned agenda, proposing that we do away with the Australian Ballot, and return to a traditional, participatory Town Meeting system…  

***

    So I am just getting back up my mountain on this First-Tuesday-In-March, and before I contemplate cleaning out my sap buckets, I would like say we had a good Town Meeting this year.  Truth is I was skeptical.  When I saw the agenda, not much looked like it was heading for a floor vote.  Seemed like most of the decisions were to give a couple-three hundred dollars to this or that non-profit organization (the big issues being decided via the ballot box).  Now don’t get me wrong, the little bit we vote to give here or there is important, especially to those folks who need the social services that many of these organizations provide.  But at the end of the day real democracy, Vermont democracy should be more than making a dozen small donations and then going home.  And more truth be told, a little into Town Meeting, when it looked like we would be through with the entire agenda by 10:00am (which as fate would have it was not the case), I was not thinking this would be one of our more historic Town Meetings in our community’s collective memory. But when we got to the last agenda item, “Other Business”, I’ll be damned if we didn’t have some real productive discussion and debate; in fact, among other things, we debated the very nature of our local democratic process.

    One thing folks recognized was that of the 1500 or so residents of Moretown, only 70 of us (give or take) were there on the floor today.  Most agreed that a healthy local democracy should be expected to draw the participation of more of our neighbors.  But again, if the big vote is giving $1000 to the Senior Center, and $150 to the Boys and Girls Club…  Well, let’s just say it isn’t shocking that not more folks came out and spent their day (or half day in this case) practicing democracy. Many folks at our Town Meeting recognized this problem, and some (myself included) questioned if we should do away with the Australian Ballot, and instead return to Vermont’s traditional Town Meeting structure. The traditional Town Meeting structure provides for the right to discus, debate, amend, and vote on the Town and School budget from the floor. It allows for us the kind of true participatory democracy which the Green Mountain Boys fought and died for (and which people throughout the world continue to struggle for today).  It allows for people to share ideas, to merge or reject ideas based on the best intention and belief of the many, as gathered together as a true community of piers.  This is unlike our present lot (in Moretown) whereby the big decisions, those which cost more than $5000, are simply put before us as a “yes” or “no” question, not open to change, and not necessarily decided upon after a meaningful public discourse.  Whereas Vermont traditionally made creative decisions together, in Town Meeting, we now sanction or decline the more narrow options put before us, unchangeable, and on paper.  For me, eliminating the participatory and amendable aspects of local democracy in the name of expedience is no gain at all.  

    So, after a good discussion, we, as a community, adapted a non-binding resolution (which I had the honor of articulating as a motion) to request that our Select Board consider placing a BINDING article on the agenda for next year which would do away with the Australian Ballot, and instead make all our meaningful decisions on the floor.  We have a good Select Board.  Tom Martin, as Chair, has done a great job.  Therefore, at the conclusion of this 2014 Town Meeting, I am already looking forward to the 2015 Town Meeting. If we do have this important question before us in a binding manner, we will have much to discuss.  For the people of Moretown, people from all political stripes and parties, to come together to revisit the method by which we practice our local democracy is a courageous step forward (and back to our traditional roots).  Now with all proposals and debates, perhaps the majority of my fellow residents disagree with my enthusiasm for such a change.  Perhaps folks will instead heed the arguments and assertions of others that live in these immediate hills and valleys.  Perhaps the majority will decide the way we are doing it now is for the best.  But, in the true spirit of Town Meeting, I would welcome a conclusion that differs from my views as long as I (and you) have the opportunity to stand up in our Town Hall, make the honorable argument, and wield the free opportunity to try (through reason and heart) to win a majority on a principled point of view.  That my friends, win, lose, or draw, is the very essence of the participatory democratic system which I believe in and which I support.

(A Country-Blues song)

Last year I went to Town Meeting

Voted for all the right folks

Filled out the Doyle Poll

And talked to the Mayor

He laughed at all of my jokes

But this year I ain’t on that checklist

That goddamn Bank foreclosed on my home

The City Clerk said that livin’ in a box

Was not the way voting districts

Were zoned

My wife and kids left me

After the Mayor laid me off

He said he wanted to save money

For the town

He said that my job

On street maintenance

Could be done by all the work release folks

Comin’ around  

And around

Around and around

Ohhhh…So I can’t go to Town Meeting

But I guess that ain’t all that bad

Cause every time I voted the previous year

The next year I wound up with less

Than I had

Ohhhhhh…yeaaaahhh…

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, VT.

Hey look: real live 21st Century Republicanism! State Representatives Heidi Scheuermann and Patti Komline have launched an online petition drive (at change.org) to overhaul Vermont’s school funding system. Now, that’s moving the VTGOP into the digital age!

The petition bears the unfortunate title “Support the Amendment to Repeal and Replace Act 60/68.” I say “unfortunate” because it echoes the spectacularly unsuccessful Republican call to “repeal and replace” Obamacare. But hey, I guess you can’t pretend to be small-P progressive if you call for repealing without replacing. From the petition’s text:

Many school districts work hard to keep their budgets constrained but unfortunately these efforts are NOT reflected in our huge property tax increases.  Act 60/68 has become too confusing and cumbersome.  A few stalwart legislators attempted to get an amendment passed last year to abolish Act 60/68 to no avail.  Now they need your help.  

“A few stalwart legislators.” Nice touch. At GMD, we like to think of ourselves as “a few stalwart bloggers.”  

I should take a snark break here to acknowledge that the school funding system does need some fixing. Indeed, in political terms, this issue could well be the biggest problem for Democrats in this year’s election. Yes, bigger than Vermont Health Connect — assuming the remaining bugs in VHC are fixed.  

As of 7:00 a.m. on March 4 (Happy Town Meeting Day, everybody!), the petition has garnered a whole 339 signatures. So they’ve still got some work to do.

People who sign the petition are offered the option of posting a comment, and here’s where the fun begins: some of the comments are rife with mistakes in basic grammar and spelling. And yes, I know that’s a common feature of online comments sections (GMD excluded), but really, on an education petition, I hope they’d be a little bit more careful.

Then again, this could be a cleverly-concealed argument for “repeal and replace”: if these signatories are products of our public school system, maybe it really does need an overhaul.

A Festival of English Class No-No’s, with names redacted to protect the former C-minus students, after the jump.  

Here we go!

Vermont is taxing the working class out of Vermont. We have one of the highest per pupil spending in the country.

As school populations decline, school budgets continue to escalate with no end in site.

Vermont is becoming none affordable to it working class residence.

being in Real Estate, I have witnessed many people who Have had enough of the high cost of taxes in the state of Vermont.

We need to return to a time when there is direct effect of what gets approved in one Town effects that Town’s budget.

This is another un afforadable plan in Vermont to redistribute wealth of hard working and achieving Vermonters.

The present system is unstainable.

people are losing their homes because of high yaxes

Act 60/68 id blatenly unfair!

The current system supports wasteful budgets and pushes the State toward the destruction of our finest educational instattutions

Clearly, the destruction of our finest educational instattutions is already well underway. Yaxes are too high. Time to change this unstainable system! Id blatenly unfair! No end is in site! Take action now, or Vermont will become none affordable!

An interesting show on VPR’s Vermont Edition today. Talking about how great snowmobiling is and how terrible that we have way less snow now than we used back in the good old days of yore.

Finally, a caller made the point that the reason there’s less snow today is because of exhaust from vehicles, such as snowmobiles, causing the climate to change, and instead of inculcating or children to waste gas on snow machines and kill off their future, maybe we should teach them to preserve their lives instead?

The guest from VAST had no response, obviously.

The nuclear news from Japan is pretty much all bad these days; nevertheless, the Japanese government has decided to turn its back on caution and restart its reactors that have been idle for the past three years.

Speaking for the Japanese Ministry of Economy and Trade, Toshikazu Okuya rationalized the move with economic arguments, insisting that the the country can not prosper without nuclear being a significant component of its energy portfolio.  Officials are promising a gradual reduction in dependence on nuclear energy, which, up until the shut down, represented about 30% of Japans energy supply; but they are establishing no deadlines or other benchmarks, leaving many extremely skeptical that this is anything more than lip service paid to ease nuclear jitters in the country.

Meanwhile, back at the radioactive ranch:

Over the course of the past month we learned that

1) January 30, 2014 – TEPCO admitted there “might” be a 3-inch hole in the suppression shield at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2.  

There was.

2) February 20, 2014 – Workers at the same Unit accidentally short-circuited one of the two functioning thermometers used to monitor the temperature in the bottom of the damaged reactor, but there are no plans to replace the thermometer because radiation levels are too hight to attempt it.  The failed thermometer was the same one that was replaced last September, when it was discovered that only one out of ten thermometers was still functioning.  Now it appears that monitoring will have to depend upon the last functioning thermometer in the depths of the crippled unit where a constant flow of water must be maintained in an attempt to cool the melted core.

3) February 24, 2014 – Human error once again was the cause of a leak of over 100 tons of highly contaminated water from one of the storage tanks that are lining up on the site as the crisis continues with no end in sight.  

TEPCO also admitted that workers were not sufficiently monitoring the levels of water inside of the tanks and ignored alarms which indicated the water levels in the tank were increasing.

A bit late, TEPCO has “decided” to dig some observation wells in order to investigate the possibility of groundwater contamination resulting from the leak(s).

If they do find contamination in the groundwater, TEPCO plans to dig a well in order to pump water out, but with limited storage space some experts have questioned whether TEPCO would be able to adequately store this additional water for any extended period of time.

But nobody’s  going to rain on Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe’s  parade of economic opportunism.

Abe, who fantasizes about  a boom in sales for Japanese-made reactors in the global market, last year successfully courted the International Olympic Committee for a Tokyo Games with the following :

“There are no health-related problems until now, nor will there be in the future, I make the statement to you in the most emphatic and unequivocal way.”  

I guess he must have had his fingers crossed behind his back at the time.  

As we have reported on GMD, despite the best official efforts to suppress or misrepresent data, a marked rise in thyroid cancers that can be linked to Fukushima has not escaped the notice of medical observers.

Now what’s this I hear about Entergy trying to play a fast one on Vermont with regard to their decommissioning obligation for Vermont Yankee?

Let our experience be a cautionary tale to any community considering a walk down the primrose path to nuclear energy.  

Buyer beware!

(Probably not, but maybe.)

Found today on True North Reports, the right-wing “news” site that’s usually not worth the time it takes to click a mouse, is an item that’s actually worth noting. It’s about the introduction of H.772, the Right To Work Act, by two Republican state representatives. It was accompanied by the usual conservative freedom rhetoric — as if the greatest threat to workers’ freedom is the tyranny of labor unions, not, say, corporate paymasters who try to keep salaries and bennies as stingy as possible.

But I digress. None of the freedomy jibjab is worth my time or yours. But the last paragraph of TNR’s story provides an extensive quote from our Lieutenant Governor, Phil Scott:

Vermont Lt. Governor Phil Scott shared his support for legislation aiming to make Vermont more competitive. “I applaud the efforts of legislators, who understand that improving Vermont’s economy is one of the most important, if not the most important thing we must address in order to keep Vermont competitive on a regional and global scale” said Lt. Gov. Scott in an emailed statement. He also identifies with the struggle that Vermont business owners have. “As a small-business owner, I know first-hand the difficult environment that businesses face in this state, and know that we all have a hand in making it better. In this light, I am repeating my call to every committee, whether House or Senate, to view each and every bill through the lens of: “How will this grow jobs and help Vermont’s economy?” I fear we may be running out of time to focus on these issues; the economy can’t be fixed overnight.”

If you skim over that paragraph in the context of the article, you could easily conclude that Scott has endorsed the measure. If you look more closely, you’ll note a passel of Phil Scott weasel-words: he applauds “the efforts of legislators” to improve Vermont’s competitiveness, and “identifies with the struggle” of Vermont business owners in this “difficult environment” for business. And he urges lawmakers to consider “each and every bill through the lens of” job growth.

Nothing he hasn’t said before. Now, did the TNR writer take a generic Phil Scott comment and creatively append it to his Right To Work article? Or was this Scott’s actual reaction to the introduction of Right To Work?

If the latter, it looks like Scott’s attempt to avoid taking an actual position while giving a hearty dog-whistle to conservatives on one of their pet issues.

Either way, it’s another chapter in Phil Scott’s Profiles In (What’s The Opposite Of) Courage.