Apparently some folks down Putney way are upset over the lack of consistent broadband service — and over Governor Shumlin’s declarations of “Mission Accomplished” on that front.

How upset? Upset enough to send out a press release in ALL CAPS.

APPROXIMATELY 300 RESIDENTS OF GOVERNOR PETER SHUMLIN’S HOME TOWN OF PUTNEY, VERMONT, STILL LACK HIGH SPEED BROADBAND, DESPITE PROMISES BY THE GOVERNOR TO “GET HIGH SPEED INTERNET TO EVERY LAST MILE IN THIS GREAT STATE BY THE END OF 2013 ! ”

… PUTNEY TOWN RESIDENTS WHO STILL LACK (HARD-WIRED) BROADBAND WILL BE REGISTERING THEIR FRUSTRATION AND ANGER WITH THE GOVERNOR’S BROKEN PROMISES AT THIS TUESDAY’S ANNUAL TOWN MEETING,…

TRADITIONALLY, GOV. SHUMLIN… ATTENDS HIS LOCAL TOWN MEETING, TO GIVE LOCAL RESIDENTS AN UPDATE ON HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS WELL AS HIS VISION FOR THE FUTURE.

LOCAL RESIDENTS HOPE TO ENGAGE GOV. SHUMLIN, AND HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR KEEPING HIS PROMISE.

Nope, not a good look for a press release. Anyway, Mr. Field may or may not be overstating Shumlin’s “tradition” of attending his local town meeting, I don’t know. But it looks like the Gov (now, famously, a resident of East Montpelier) won’t be playing ire-catcher in Putney. From Shumlin’s public-appearance schedule:

Tuesday, March 4, Town Meeting Day

9:00 a.m. Visit Richmond Town Meeting

Camels Hump Middle School

173 School Street

10:15 a.m. Visit Georgia Town Meeting

Georgia Elementary School

4416 Ethan Allen Hwy, Georgia

I doubt that Shumlin is willfully ducking a broadband confrontation; he’s much more likely to draw heat over school funding wherever he goes on Tuesday. For his part, Mr. Field could have checked with the Governor’s office before sending out his press rel — sorry, PRESS RELEASE. I suspect he deliberately failed to do so, in hopes of drawing attention to his actual Town Meeting Day gambit (and, bonus, shaming the Governor for not attending an event he had no plans to attend):

RESIDENTS PLAN TO INTRODUCE A RESOLUTION ADVISING THEIR LOCAL SELECTBOARD TO INSIST THAT LOCAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES AND THE GOVERNOR CARRY THROUGH IMMEDIATELY WITH SHUMLIN’S PROMISE…

Gah. Enough with the all caps, plz.

This isn’t Field’s first public foray on the subject of rural broadband. One year ago in VTDigger:

Some residents in Gov. Peter Shumlin’s hometown of Putney are skeptical about whether the state will keep its promise to ensure all Vermonters have access to broadband by the end of 2013, and they are doubtful about the quality of the service.

John Field, who lives on Putney’s West Hill Road near the boundary with Dummerston, estimates that 20 or so homes in his neighborhood lack broadband access.

What FIeld wants is hard-wired broadband, rather than the wireless variety that’s the only option for some sparsely-populated areas. I can sympathize, but look: that area of Putney/Dummerston is popular with white-collar professionals who choose to live out in the boonies. Like, say, John Field:

Field and his wife, Jane, both work for Brattleboro Memorial Hospital, as a psychotherapist/social worker and pediatrician, respectively.

In other words, they could live anywhere they want. Now, that’s a beautiful area, and if my family had two professional incomes (and jobs in Brattleboro), we might well choose to live there too. But, geez, don’t expect city-level services if you live deep in the countryside. Just ask the head man at Field’s ISP.

VTel’s president Michel Guité says he is also a big fan of fiber, or hardwired Internet access, but that’s a “dream that won’t happen” in Vermont, because it isn’t economically feasible in many towns.

The Governor’s promises have sparked some unrealistic expectations. But that’s what they are: unrealistic. John Field, through his ALL-CAPS PRESS RELEASE, has raised another expectation: Shumlin’s personal attendance at Town Meeting. And when the Governor fails to show, Field and his affluent, forest-dwelling friends will have another pretext for railing about broken promises.  

Another opinion on the Montpelier election, this time an op-ed published in The Bridge  and written by David Abbott, who has been one of the most eloquent voices in the city opposing the austerity agenda.

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

JMc

For some Montpelier opponents of the school budget that appears to be the great divide when citizens vote on the school budget on Town Meeting Day, March 4. In their thinking a vote for the school budget has less legitimacy if the voter, as most of us do, has an income sensitized school tax. They refer to these voters as having No Skin in the Game.

Are some citizens of modest means able to vote for the school budget only because they are shielded from the full cost of that vote by income sensitivity provided by the Property Adjustment Tax (PAT)? Probably so. But here’s another Skin in the Game question that I never hear discussed. Are there some citizens voting against the school budget because they don’t have kids in our public schools? Undoubtedly. We’ll call these folks voters with No Kin in the Game.

Which voter, the one who supports the school budget, irrespective of Skin in the Game, or the voter who votes against the budget because he or she has No Kin in the Game, makes the greater contribution to this city? Is a No Skin in the Game vote any less legitimate than a No Kin in the Game vote? Think hard about the answers to these questions because the answers will define us.

Of course this isn’t a game. Most families with kids take their children’s education very seriously, understanding that good public schools offer invaluable preparation for future success. Many other voters, those without children in our schools, understand this as well. Together, they have given us a caring and generous community that is supportive of our most important infrastructure- the schools that serve our children.

I am proud of our city’s reputation for good schools. I am also proud of our state for using income tax revenues in supporting school budgets via the Property Adjustment Tax. Public schools are too important to the nation’s future to be wholly dependent upon a regressive real estate tax that for many bears scant relationship to an ability to pay.

Every year on Town Meeting Day roughly two thirds of Montpelier voters support the school budget . Let’s dig a little deeper in supporting our kids this year.

This is an unusual year in Montpelier, with contested elections for mayor and all three City Council seats. With the approval of the candidate, I am posting a letter Page Guertin, who is running for  the District 2 Council seat, recently published in the Times Argus. I think she raises important points about the direction the current Council is taking.

JMc

I am running for City Council in Montpelier’s district 2 because we must be vigilant about maintaining the value of the investments we’ve made in this city and its quality of life, through the payment our taxes.   City government is a service organization; budgets should be developed on the basis of how we can provide the best possible services to residents and visitors, and the best possible outcomes long-term, not simply on the bottom line for next year.  I support careful, thorough analysis of all costs, resources,  assets and benefits with an eye to long-range goals, along with creative approaches to new sources of revenue like a variety of new, smart, efficient homes and further collaboration with surrounding communities.  Managing our money carefully is important, but when budget development is framed only by the maximum percentage of increase, we need to ask, “What do we lose?”

I am a recovering computer systems analyst.  I do analysis well, I value process, openness, and inclusiveness.  I like details, and I listen in order to understand.  I served on Montpelier’s Charter Revision Committee, I’ve attended city council meetings, and I’m active in our neighborhood organization.  I’d like to use my skills to serve the city, bring people together to continually evaluate and renew goals and aspirations for the future, and make sure budgets follow those goals and aspirations.

The current City Council appears to pursue the Vibrant and Affordable Montpelier (VAM) agenda, which is simply to cut budgets.  I think that’s a potentially damaging perspective, and I’d like the council to be more inclusive and representative of all residents of Montpelier.  One of my central goals is to to improve process, communication and transparency in council dealings, and to work toward inviting increased public participation in the important work of city governance.

I’ve just downloaded the tally sheet from the St. Albans City vote last night.  As I more-or-less predicted, the total number of voters was 678.  

For now, I’m pretty content with the outcome.

________________________________________________________________________

It’s interesting that civic nerves seem a little raw, not just in St. Albans, but in major cities and towns all over Vermont; from Burlington to St. J; Montpelier to Rutland.

‘Tis the season to get out and vote, so I have a couple of my own thoughts to share.

In St. Albans,  Mayor Gamache and the City Council have poorly represented the interests of the community in a number of recent decisions, and I go to the polls with that in mind.

There certainly is an excellent choice in Ward 3, where a highly qualified female candidate has emerged, offering the opportunity to finally break the gender lock that men have held on the City Council for far too long; but in Ward 4, where I vote,  I find myself between a rock and a hard place.  

The  incumbent, Jeff Young,  has joined the rest of the Council in disrespecting the public process and suspending its rules.   I refer, of course to the issue concerning the fate of the  J. Gregory Smith Homestead house.

This past year, I have been profoundly disappointed in my alderman’s inability to appreciate that this is not merely a question of whether or not an historic building can be saved; it is a question of whether or not the developers of that project have received inappropriate favors from the City and not been held to the same rules as bind ordinary citizens.

Unfortunately, his challenger represents further entrenchment of the culture of cronyism that drives the City agenda.   “No sale,” say I to both candidates.

If you, too, feel that you cannot support  the only names offered on your ballot,  you still have a choice to write-in your own name or that of a trusted neighbor.  Taken together, all of those ballots, represent a  vote of non-confidence against “business as usual,” which will send a powerful message to your Town Hall.  I cannot support either candidate in my ward (4); nevertheless, I will not fail to vote for someone whom I can depend upon to respect the process.

St. Albans City  has a population of roughly 7,000 individuals and a voter turn-out of… what? Seven or eight hundred, at best?  

The parking garage bond vote last September totaled 559 “for” and 170 “against.”  The City Manager characterized this as a “landslide” victory; but with only about 8% of the population supporting the measure, you’ve got to ask yourself what the other 90% really thought about the issue.

A lot of people have simply given up on getting rid of  cronyism and backroom deal-making; so they don’t even bother coming out to vote anymore.  But reform will never happen without citizen participation at the ballot box.

Believe me, I know how tempting it is to throw in the towel; but be assured that all of the special interest movers and shapers, whose advantages depend on keeping their man or woman in City Hall, will be making sure that their supporters get to the polls.

Let’s make sure to get our protest votes in there to be counted as well!

The only way you can truly become disenfranchised is if you choose not to participate at all.

( – promoted by kestrel9000)

There has been some controversy lately over some issues on the Burlington ballot and as a Burlington resident I’m offering my perspective on all the ballot issues this upcoming Town Meeting day.  

1. School Budget for FY 2015. The budget is increasing about 9% to $66,870,000 approximately. As a renter in the Old North End I used to approve the increases without much question as I’m sympathetic to a proper education for young people, which is increasingly under assault across the country. Much of the drive in the increase is a change in the formula to raise property taxes which has been mandated by the state legislature, so the school board really isn’t at fault for all of the increase, but after a year in which it had already increased 10%, it is hard to swallow another one, especially as landlords are using that as a reason to jack up rent. I’m going to vote it down. Even if it fails, another similar one will be brought up later with a lower turnout and relatively unchanged, except for a slightly smaller increase, and will eventually pass.

2. TIF District. The Moran plant demolition scenario. This is a complex item (refer to link above) with many pieces to it. The main portion deals with the Moran plant redevelopment. Most of the money will come from private funding, but the city will leverage a maximum of $9,600,000 issued in bonds and where TIF district tax increments will be used to pay for the repayment of said bonds. There will be Waterfront Park upgrades, a new home for the Lake Champlain Community Sailing Center, construction of a new marina on the northern portion of the Waterfront, construction of outdoor amenities around the Leahy Echo Center and improvement for northern parts of the Waterfront access. Most of the funds for the project should come from private funding, as this bond is only for the city’s part. If private funding fails to materialize, the Mayor and the City Council could use TIF funding to demolish the Moran Plant. After seeing the eyesore that the Moran plant has been for so many years and the inability to get something done about it, I think demolition is the best thing to happen to the Waterfront. My take is that the private funding (in the hands of 2 UVM seniors and a private business sector partner) will be insufficient and the Mayor will eventually get the Moran demolished. My vote is Yes, if nothing but for the hope that they demolish the Moran Plant.

3. Increase in tax rate for the general fund. Increase in property taxes for the general fund of nearly 3%. I have mixed feelings about this, but I could stomach it. This hasn’t been raised for a while (as far as I have been aware). I think it probably won’t pass, but I could tentatively vote for it (but then why am I voting for one increase and not for another?). Namely the increase isn’t as overblown as the other one. Tentative yes.

4. Referendum on Issuance of Bonds to purchase Winooski River dam under bridge connecting Burlington and Winooksi. This is a no-brainer. Yes, after paying off the bond and assurance from Burlington Electric that it won’t increase rates and it still has decades of service left, as well as being sustainable, baseload power right next door, it is in the best interests of the city and its ratepayers. Yes.

5. Redefining Ward Boundaries. Basically this is a two-tier process. There are four electoral districts electing one counselor each, and eight wards electing one counselor each, for a total of 12 city counselors. This is the best the City Council and the Reapportionment Board could come up with and bring to the city voters. If its makeup is confusing, well, it is. In my opinion, while they tried their best to do a fair job and get input from everyone, the need to have two tiers of districts just makes things more complicated than they should be. I’m not sure if it will pass. My vote is No. It’s not a deal-breaker for me and I could live with it without a major fuss, but I seriously don’t get the need to overcomplicate things in these matters.

6. Confiscate weapons in domestic abuse incident. Oh dear, the City Council and Mayor, as well as many fellow citizens decided to open up this can of worms. There has been a serious and passionate debate on this blog recently over this issue. Personally, I find myself aghast and puzzled by the passion for weapons in this country, but then, I'm not a native, so it will always be a bit of a mystery. I personally think they should be completely banned for personal use because there is no need to have a gun. There are many responsible gun owners, but there are also many irresponsible ones. Guns are also used as a way to threaten people, and in this scenario, women who are the victims of domestic abuse often stay in relationships because they are intimidated with the use of firearms. This should be a simple Yes. There is one big problem though: the US Constitution and the Vermont Constitution. I have read the Vermont Statutes and only the state has the right to regulate firearms, not towns. This item would ask the Legislature to allow Burlington to have an exception. That is not going to happen. It also makes the town ripe for lawsuits. That costs money. Burlington has already lost a lot of money in lawsuits. There is no need for more needless lawsuits. I like the US Constitution and the Vermont Constitution, but there are aspects of it that I seriously disagree with. Will I vote Yes or No? To be honest, I just might abstain on this one.

7. Charter change to forbid firearms in any establishment with a liquor license. Do we really need this? I agree firearms don’t belong in said establishments except for law enforcement. Why not just engage the establishments directly and ask them to forbid it on their own. It is in their best interests not to have people with guns in them and I don’t think it would take much persuasion to do so. I’m leaning No, but I might abstain also on this one.

8. Safe storage of firearms. Third gun charter change proposal and last ballot item. Again I agree with the proposition. Common sense, which I know many gun owners already practice, but some don’t. I won’t rehash arguments here, except for lawsuits and approval from the state. Do we need the state to dictate what to do on this? This is a tentative Yes, but I’m leaning towards abstention.  

At the top of this week’s “Boy, do I miss Peter Freyne” column in Seven Days, Paul Heintz puts his oar in the water thusly:

Nearly two months into the legislative session, the scene at the Statehouse remains unusually slow.

Yeah, well, actually, no. It may be unusually smooth, or unusually dull. It may be low on bickering, hand-wringing, and stumblebumitude (if it ain’t a word, it oughta be), but actually, this legislative session has been pretty eventful.

It’s just that most of the events involve the legislative process at work. Bills on a variety of tough subjects — bills that have foundered in past sessions — are moving through the system with dispatch. Some of those bills are better than others (let us not speak further of campaign finance reform), but a hell of a lot of stuff is being accomplished with not much drama.

Methinks the Democrats have gotten a solid handle on how to operate with a veto-proof majority.

Maybe they learned some stuff from the difficulties of 2012, when bills were derailed by the least little bit of opposition or controversy and the State Senate was basically a disaster. (So bad that Senate Penitent Pro Tem John Campbell came thisclose to losing his job, and only hung onto it by promising to overhaul his office and whip himself into shape.) Yeah, that 2012 session was kind of a stinker. Especially since the Democrats had zero excuses.

Last year was better, but there was still room for improvement. Some things got through: end of life, marijuana decrim, drivers’ licenses for migrant workers, to name a few. But others went nowhere, or fell victim to House-Senate disputes: campaign finance reform, shorelands protection, child-care unionization. Governor Shumlin’s doomed tax proposals (Earned Income Tax Credit cut and hey, remember that zany break-open ticket tax?) sucked a lot of air out of the room, and he allowed some good proposals on child care and energy to die rather than accept alternative funding sources.

This year, a lot of formerly difficult items have been sailing along. There’s still time for the session to go sideways, but look at some of the legislature’s accomplishments to date:  

— Campaign finance reform. Yes, the bill set high contribution limits, but at least they got something through after years and years of kicking the can down the road.

— The Senate has approved a child-care unionization bill.

— The shorelands protection bill, which was blocked in the Senate last year after House passage, has cleared the Senate.

— The Senate has passed a bill to streamline decisions on hospitalization and medication of psychiatric patients.

— Lawmakers have begun taking some real steps toward water quality improvement and Lake Champlain cleanup, including the ever-nettlesome identification of potential funding sources.

— The House Education Committee is finalizing a bill to consolidate public school governance.

The Legislature is also moving on two bills (a ban on using hand-held cellphones while driving and a mandate for employers to provide paid sick time) that may face a gubernatorial veto — or a face-saving derailment before reaching the Governor’s desk. But at least they’re moving.

I can’t say I like everything that’s been done. But I like the fact that the Dems are working together in an apparently harmonious way to get stuff done. It’s better than the squabbling and vacillation that too often characterized 2012 and 2013.

What’s this? A happy blogger? Horrors!

Well, not entirely. But satisfied, within reasonable expectations.  

So the once-great IBM took another step into the Abyss of Forgotten Giants today with another round of layoffs, including approximately 150 at its Essex Junction plant. The fact that it was “only” 150 conpared to last year’s roughly 400 is, I suppose, cause for a teeny-tiny bit of celebration. Cue the Kazoo Chorus.

The numbers are all approximate and rough because IBM refuses to disclose layoff numbers or, for that matter, the size of its domestic workforce because the actual figures would be so damn embarrassing. The IBM watchdog group Alliance@IBM keeps track of the numbers as best it can; it reports that IBM’s domestic workforce peaked at 154,000 in the year 2000. That number had dropped to an estimated 88,000 by the end of last year, and will now fall even further.

But wait, there’s more. Alliance@IBM says the 88,000 figure includes more than 20,000 vendors, contractors, and supplemental workers. Which brings its actual salaried workforce to a pitiful 66,000.

(IBM’s global workforce has remained basically stable, with thousands upon thousands of new positions in India, China, and anywhere else labor is cheap and fungible, up to and perhaps including Elbonia, Freedonia, Anvilania, Yukkabukkoo, and perhaps Tatooine*, essentially displacing employees in the United States.)

*That Jabba, now there’s a guy we can cut a deal with.

No wonder the Alliance “Job Cuts” message board is littered with reports from laid-off workers whose primary emotion is relief rather than sadness. IBM has become a toxic workplace, and a lot of people are just glad to get the hell out, even if it wasn’t their choice.

In corporatespeak, the layoffs were the result of a poor fourth-quarter earnings report. Which is, if I may put it bluntly, either a lie or spectacularly poor management. You shouldn’t react to a single disappointing quarter with massive layoffs that will cost a billion dollars in reorganization charges.

Well, you shouldn’t unless your one and only goal is boosting profits, even if it means cannibalizing the company’s future — or, as technology reporter Robert X. Cringely puts it, “eating your seed corn.” Cringely has reported extensively on IBM’s one and only strategic goal: to goose its profits as quickly as possible. Preferably by growing the business; but failing that, by selling assets and slashing payroll.

And IBM has been steadily “failing that,” and resorting to corporate cannibalism. Alliance@IBM’s figures don’t lie, and neither does IBM’s stonewall on domestic workforce.

David Sunderland, head of the Vermont Republican Party, reacted to the IBM news with complete predictability:

We call on Governor Shumlin to take immediate action that will ease the burden on Vermont’s businesses and individuals by; reducing Vermont’s tax burden to encourage growth, easing Vermont’s regulatory burden by reducing bureaucratic red tape, and lowering our state’s energy costs for individuals and small businesses.

If Sunderland has a brain in his head, he knows damn well that IBM is doing what it’s doing because of its global strategy (or lack thereof). The Essex Junction plant would be slowly withering away even if we ripped off all the red tape and gave IBM free electricity and a tax rate of zero.

(Speaking of Sunderland, Bad Journalism Alert: The Burlington Free Press’ online article on the IBM layoffs puts Sunderland’s boilerplate in the headline: “Republican Chairman Chides Governor on IBM Job Cuts.” Way to thumb the scales, Freeploid!)

Now, back to our story.

Interestingly, Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, Republican Enough For Most Sane People, issued a more nuanced statement. He naturally called for more action “to grow our economy, create high-paying jobs, or make it easier to do business within our borders.” But he put the blame, not on Shumlin or the Democrats, but on “we in Montpelier.”  Classy. I’m sure it earned him no points with the Darcie Johnston wing of the party.

In any event, the takeaway from today’s layoffs is Same As It Ever Was: IBM’s circling the drain, putting short-term profit above actually building a business, As far as is practicable, it is abandoning America, it is outsourcing and cost-cutting everywhere, and selling off valuable parts of its business. Shareholders and top executives win big; everybody else takes it in the shorts.

IBM used to be a good corporate citizen and a valued source of stable, high-paying jobs. The lights may still be on at Essex Junction — well, some of ’em anyway — but that IBM is already long gone. We know how this story will end.  

This week’s issue of Seven Days (THE SEXXXXXXXX ISSUE!!!!!!! Purely for journalistic reasons, not at all an appeal to our baser instincts and our baser advertisers) includes a lengthy, exhaustively detailed look at the very combative campaign for mayor of Montpelier, featuring incumbent John Hollar and challenger Gwen Hallsmith, penned by Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz. Read at your pleasure; my attention is focused on a single anecdote buried deep within the article, and presented by Heintz without commentary. Which I will hereby provide. You’re welcome, Paul.

We pick up our story with Mayor Hollar suffering a real bad case of Bunched Knicker Syndrome over some reporting in the Times Argus that struck Hizzoner as too favorable toward Hallsmith. Take it away, Paul…

Upset with the paper’s coverage, Hollar wrote to publisher John Mitchell to complain about what he called “numerous distortions and false statements.” Mitchell, apparently, agreed with the mayor. In an email to Hollar, the publisher said that if he had not been out of town, he “might otherwise have been more involved in this story sooner.”

“I admire your restraint on this matter, and, unfortunately, share your concerns, i.e. ‘tone, directions and implications,’ about how this story has been handled,” Mitchell wrote.

And there’s the journalistic perfidy. It’s a universal, if unwritten, rule of the trade: if you run a news operation and one of your minions falls afoul of a public figure, you back your staffer. Even if you think the staffer was all wrong: you deal with it in private, and close ranks in public. You do not undercut your staff.  

Mitchell’s grovel before Hollar was craven and cowardly, and unworthy of one of the great families of Vermont newspapering. And although Mitchell saw fit to bow and scrape before the mayor, his subordinate saw it differently. And still does.

Times Argus editor Steve Pappas makes no such apologies.

“Stories such as this, where conflicts of interest are raised among public officials, have to be explored,” he says, noting that the paper has given just as much scrutiny to Gov. Peter Shumlin and Barre Mayor Thom Lauzon. “We felt that we did our due diligence.”

Steve Pappas has done yeoman’s work keeping the Times Argus semi-relevant on a shoestring budget that offers salaries barely competitive with Mickey D’s. John Mitchell should get down on his knees and thank God every damn day that he’s got Steve Pappas running his ship. The last thing he should be doing is sticking a politically convenient knife in his editor’s back.

Shameful.  

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

The Campaign for Vermont  recently released an Education Research Tool with spending figures  for all Vermont schools. I was shocked to see that BFA tops the list at $30,859 per pupil per year. Fortunately, this number is totally inaccurate.

The Agency of Education and the BFA Annual Report from 2013 both show an equalized annual per pupil spending of $14,325 for fiscal year 2014. Why the big difference? I believe that it stems largely from the use of the budgets of the high school and the tech center together divided by an inaccurate pupil count for the high school alone to arrive at a grossly inaccurate spending number. I leave it to readers to decide whether this was a willful manipulation of the data or just bad methodology.

I applaud the Campaign for Vermont for their effort to shine light on education spending, but erroneous data causes confusion. Misinformation is worse than no information at all. I encourage everyone to educate themselves as to the real spending at each of our schools- and to look beyond test scores to outcomes like employment, graduation rates, and college enrollment as evidence of value for our tax dollars.

In Montpelier we are looking at changes in school property tax formulations, school governance and other policies that should reduce cost and improve outcomes for Vermont students. Data is very useful, but inaccurate data can be misleading and dangerous.

I applaud the work of FCSU and BFA administrators, staff and school board members. I’m very happy to report that, contrary to the Campaign for Vermont’s ERT, BFA’s per pupil spending is below the state average for Vermont high schools.

Representative Mike McCarthy

Saint Albans

For Immediate Release

For further information contact:

James Marc Leas 802 864-1575

Complaint filed with Vermont Attorney General alleges open meeting law violation

Requests investigation and enforcement

Vermont Attorney General Bill Sorrell received a letter today asking him to investigate violation of Vermont’s open meeting law by three South Burlington City Councilors, Pam Mackenzie, Chris Shaw, and Pat Nowak.

The open meeting law finds support in article 1, chapter 6 of the Vermont Constitution, which provides:

That all power being originally inherent in and consequently derived from the people, therefore, all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants; and at all times, in a legal way, accountable to them.

As the Vermont Supreme Court said:

In 1957, the Vermont Legislature enacted the Open Meeting Law.  The Legislature’s purpose was to “give meaning to Chapter I, Article 6 of the      Vermont Constitution.”  Rowe v. Brown,    Vt.    ,    , 599 A.2d 333, 336 1991). (Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc v. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Vermont and University of Vermont http://libraries.vermont.gov/s… 1992)

“As the first line of defense against corruption, the importance of the open meeting law cannot be over stated,” said South Burlington attorney James Marc Leas, who submitted the letter. “This law is a check on the ability of a quorum of city councilors to meet privately with monied interests. Allowing its degradation opens the door wide to corruption.”

“Like everyone else, law-makers, including city government officials, must be held fully accountable when they break the law,” said Mr. Leas. “The oath of office provided in the Vermont Constitution and sworn by the Attorney General to ‘do equal right and justice to all persons’ would be devoid of meaning if he gave public officials a pass because of who they are or the position they hold.”

The three councilors, Pam Mackenzie, Chris Shaw, and Pat Nowak, each announced their attendance at a meeting of the South Burlington Energy Committee on February 15 at a South Burlington City Council meeting three days later 13:50, 17:47, and 21:56 on CCTV.  Additional facts were presented in a news item on WPTZ on February 19, “Accusations fly about open meeting violations, City lawyer says councilors did nothing wrong” http://www.wptz.com/news/vermo… an article in the Burlington Free Press on February 19, “Violation of open meeting laws alleged in South Burlington, Three city council members convened without warning” http://www.burlingtonfreepress… and in an article in Seven Days, on February 19, “South Burlington Councilor Decries ‘A Mockery of Democracy'” http://www.sevendaysvt.com/Off…

Several residents brought the violation of the open meeting law by a quorum of the City Council to the attention of the Council immediately after the opening remarks by City Council members on February 18 [23:30 and 59:15 on CCTV].

City officials in denial

Also on February 19, City Manager Kevin Dorn issued an email stating “there was no violation of the open meeting law.” However, Mr. Dorn’s email self-servingly misquoted the law (he wrongly asserted that for the law to be violated the councilors had to take action on city business rather than merely participate in discussion of city business or listen to discussion of city business. In his email, Mr. Dorn replaced an “or” in the law with an “and” to reach this result).

After the misquoting was pointed out by Keith Epstein, a member of the energy committee, and by James Marc Leas, in a later email, Mr. Dorn then further incorrectly insisted that the councilors “did not attend the GUEP meeting to discuss or conduct the business of the public body (the Council) nor did they do either of those things.” However, Mr. Dorn omitted mention of the fact that all three councilors did in fact discuss the business of the city during the meeting and that one of them had been invited to give a speech at the meeting and did speak.

After the failed interventions by the City Manager failed to quell the issue, in response to a request from Mr. Dorn, on February 19 City Attorney Jim Barlow issued a memorandum supposedly addressing the facts and law at issue. The memorandum, “Alleged Open Meeting Law Violation” http://www.burlingtonfreepress… was posted to the web site of the Burlington Free Press. However, like the email from Mr. Dorn, the memorandum failed to mention the fact that all three of the city councilors spoke at the meeting. With the facts wrong, there was no way the memorandum could be relied upon as reaching a correct conclusion.

That city business was discussed at the February 15 energy committee meeting is demonstrated by the 3-page list of ideas for action generated during the discussion (attachment B).

The memorandum also omitted mention of the clear direction provided by Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos in a presentation, “Got Transparency 2013” http://www.google.com/url?sa=t…

The presentation explains what is “discussing the business of the public body [the city council]”:

• Discussing anything that the public body has the authority to oversee.

• Open Meeting laws apply regardless of where a quorum of the public body is gathered

The assertion in the memorandum that the open meeting law does not apply if the council voted and “no further action by the Council was necessary or required for the City’s participation in this event,” is in sharp conflict with the law as written, with the constitutional provision, and with direction from the Secretary of State. Under the direction from the Secretary of State, the open meeting law applies if the quorum is present when “anything the public body has the authority to oversee” is discussed. Requirement for further action by the Council is irrelevant, under the law and under the direction from the Secretary of State.  

Attached is the letter requesting investigation and enforcement submitted to Attorney General Bill Sorrell by James Marc Leas. Also the three attachments to that letter, including the various emails and the list of ideas generated during discussion at the February 15 meeting.

The violation of open meeting law by the three members of the South Burlington City Council immediately follows the charge of open meeting law violation by one of them, Pam Mackenzie, in her other capacity as chair of the Vermont Public Television Board.