For immediate release

For further information contact James Marc Leas 802 864-1575

Renewed FOIA request for F-35 fleet flight hours submitted to the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office

F-16 co-designer Pierre Sprey says F-35 cumulative fleet flight hours by 2020 will be further reduced because of mishaps and cost

Below this news release is the renewed FOIA request for F-35 fleet flight hours submitted to the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office. This request is similar to the FOIA request that VTDigger effectively suppressed last year in the months leading up to the Air Force decision to base the F-35-A jets in Burlington.

“Fleet flight hours” is a critical parameter for determining the safety of a new jet fighter, like the F-35-A. The F-16 had over one million worldwide fleet flight hours when it was first based in Burlington in 1986. According to calculations by F-16 co-designer, Pierre Sprey, the severely troubled F-35-A is unlikely to have anywhere near that number of fleet flight hours when it arrives in Burlington in 2020. Its safety record will therefore not be verifiably established when it arrives, and it is likely to have a much higher crash rate than the F-16 had.

An F-35-A burst into flames due to what Aviation Week called a “safety-critical problem” in its engine while the jet was speeding down the runway on take off at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida on June 23, 2014 (“F-35 Fire: In Search Of A Solution,” Aviation Week, September 8, 2014). According to Aviation Week, “no single root cause has yet been identified.”

According to that Aviation Week article, “Five F135 engines have been pulled from F-35s after failing an inspection regime that was instituted after the June 23 fire. One of the failed engines was removed from F-35 CF-9 (the ninth production F-35C), an aircraft with fewer than 70 flight hours, according to a retired military officer and JSF program veteran.”

Vermont Air National Guard Pilots and Burlington area residents will be at risk if the F-35-A fleet has not flown at least a million fleet flight hours, according to Pierre Sprey. As reported in Seven Days last year, “All new fighters have high accident rates, he explained, which are higher than mature fighter planes and much higher than scheduled commercial airliners.” If substantially less than a million fleet flight hours, there will be no solid basis for the plane’s safety record when it arrives in Burlington in 2020. Sprey’s calculations last year indicated that the F-35-A would not have more than 100,000 fleet flight hours when it arrives in Burlington in 2020, way less than sufficient for safety and for accurately determining the plane’s accident rate.

In view of the renewed FOIA request, in an email today Pierre Sprey wrote:

With respect to my prediction of 100,000 fleet flight hours by 2020, there is now no doubt that the total hours will be substantially less because a) F-35A flying hours per aircraft per month have increased more slowly than predicted (due to groundings and continuing aircraft unreliability); and b) there will be significantly less F-35As bought by 2020 than I used in my calculations due to their continuing high and unaffordable costs (this is already reflected in the DoD’s Five Year Plan). When you get the detailed flying hour info, we can sit down together and recalculate the fleet flying hours to be anticipated in 2020.

Here is how VTDigger not only failed to do its own digging into anticipated F-35-A fleet flight hours but interfered with and effectively sabotaged such digging before the Air Force announcement last December that it would base F-35 jets in Burlington.

The day after attorney and writer James Marc Leas called Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek requesting charts showing the anticipated fleet flight hours for the F-35-A by 2020, Stefanek wrote an October 22, 2013 email to VTDigger, saying:

   “Jim Leas called yesterday and said he is a freelancer for your publication. Unfortunately, I’ve misplaced his phone number so I was hoping you could send the following information his way.

   “The F-35 Joint Program Office with the Department of Defense (not the Air Force) is responsible for F-35 fleet flight hours. You may reach that office by calling [redacted].”

VTDigger did not abide by Ann Stefanek’s request to send his way the information as to whom to call for the anticipated fleet flight hour information nor otherwise inform Mr. Leas of the need to redirect his request to the Joint Program Office. VTDigger also refused a request to release the email correspondence from Ann Stefanek. Thus the request for anticipated F-35 fleet flight hours by 2020 was effectively suppressed, and the information about anticipated fleet flight hours was not made publicly available before the Air Force issued its decision to base F-35 jets in Burlington last December.

“VTDigger also published an irresponsible story accusing me of “misrepresentation” based on Stefanek stating in her email that I said I was a freelancer for VTDigger,” said Mr. Leas.

Air Force rules expressly provide that that the Air Force considers a requester with a sufficient past publication record to be “a freelance journalist for” the publication. No employment contract, no payment for articles, and no assignment are required under the Air Force rules. All that is required is “a solid basis for expecting publication through that entity.” And for that determination the Air Force “may consider the past publication record of the requester.” The Air Force rules are identical to the wording in the federal Freedom of Information Act. The attached list includes the 39 articles VTDigger had published that had been authored by Mr. Leas in the four years previous, demonstrated that solid basis.

However, under another Freedom of Information Act request, the Air Force provided Mr. Leas with the entire email communication between Ann Stefanek and VTDigger (with specific names and phone numbers redacted). Although the article suggested otherwise, the emails from Stefanek show that she leveled no charge of any kind against Mr. Leas. The charge of “misrepresentation” was a fabrication of VTDigger in the weeks preceding the Air Force announcement. The emails also show that VTDigger did not believe Stefanek was quoting Mr. Leas precisely. But even if Stefanek had accurately quoted Mr. Leas, under the Air Force definition of “freelance journalist for a news media entity,” he would have been 100% accurate. Nevertheless, VTDigger’s personal attack article also announced that VTDigger would not publish any more articles by Mr. Leas.

“The (1) suppression of the request for information from the Air Force plus (2) the failure to pass on the contact information provided by Ann Stefanek plus (3) the defamatory attack on and the (4) silencing of a writer that the Air Force would consider a freelancer for VTDigger plus (5) the failure of VTDigger to do its own digging into anticipated fleet flight hours for the F-35A add up to a totally irresponsible role for VTDigger that facilitated the scheme to impose the high-risk F-35A on the most heavily populated region in Vermont,” Mr. Leas said. For details and a link to the full Stefanek-VTDigger correspondence see the article, “Open Letter to VTDigger Co-Publisher, Anne Galloway: Banned by VTDigger,” on greenmountaindaily.com.

As you may know, an order issued by the Secretary of the Air Force entitled, “Freedom of Information Act Program,” dated 21 October 2010 and updated on 24 April 2012 and having number DOD5400.7-R_AFMAN 33-302 has the same wording as the freedom of information act where it states:

In the case of “freelance” journalists, they may be regarded as working for a news organization if they can demonstrate a solid basis for expecting publication through that organization, even though not actually employed by it. A publication contract would be the clearest proof, but Components may also look to the past publication record of a requester in making this determination.

In addition, I request that the documents be furnished without charge, or at a charge reduced below fees assessed to the categories of requesters in subsection C6.1.5. because the waiver or reduction of the fees is in the public interest because furnishing the information is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the Department of Defense and is not in any way in the commercial interest of the requester.

Thank you very much.

best regards,

James Marc Leas

Senator Bob Hartwell’s adoration for the Committee on Committees may have peaked in 2013 when its members named him as the surprise replacement for longtime chair Ginny Lyons of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy. It was a move with immediate policy implications, replacing a supporter of wind power with a chair favoring a wind power moratorium, Hartwell.

 The three-member leadership Committee on Committees hand picks chairmen and senators to serve on standing committees. The current edition is made up of Democrats Dick Mazza and Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell and their BFF, Republican Lt. Gov. Phil Scott.

It was pointed out to me that Hartwell’s elevation two years ago may have been a concession to the Republicans’ ownership of the Lt. Governor’s chair. But that choice should give Democrats and Progressives, who maintain a large majority in the Senate, good reason to elect actual Democrats rather than DINOs to the other two slots. Short of actually changing the existing three man climate it would also be a way to register disapproval of the two (uh) Democrats’ open financial and personal support for the Republican incumbent Lt. Governor over the Progressive candidate, Dean Corren, who sought and received the Democratic Party’s endorsement, via both votes in the primary and the state party committee’s endorsement.

A retiring 5-term senator, Hartwell, in a self-appointed role as elder sage, now has given a flurry of recommendations and I-told-you-so comments in two opinion pieces just weeks apart. His complaints are mostly related to the climate in the Senate and how to change it. His list of suggested corrections (90% of which would please former Governor Jim Douglas) includes tax, Act 250 and permit-reform strategies, and structural improvements to the legislature’s oversight role. His harshest complaints come in the environmental permitting arena.

 Part of his prescription for change (and there’s no evidence of intended irony here)

[…] the Committee on Committees, which appoints senators to standing committees, must do everything it can to assure that ill-informed ideologues, inattentive to detail, are not appointed committee chairs.

Hmmm ill-informed ideologues, inattentive to detail? Well Mazza, Campbell,and Scott may or may not have known about Hartwell’s views on climate change in 2013, but it was a bit of a revelation to the general public by spring of 2014.

 Hartwell explained his view in depth to Seven Days:

To suggest that mankind is causing the whole climate to shift, that’s a big reach. I don’t think anybody’s ever proved that. I think, man doesn’t help it much with a lot of pollution, that’s for sure. And there’s been tremendous progress on that front. But there’s a natural phenomenon going on as well, so all we’re doing is accelerating that. [added emphasis]

 Better raise that bar a little higher for the three members of the Committee on Committees if they follow up on Hartwell’s pro-climate-change warning against ill-informed committee chairs. Clearly, the CoC needs a good gust of fresh air.

Well, I have to hand it to you. You rode that Benghazi horse as far as it would carry you, and, to be fair, you got a lot of mileage out of it.

Sadly for you, the horse has run out of steam and is headed for the glue factory. And yes, it's your own guys that are sending it here.

Yes, the Republicans in Congress were absolutely determined that the Obama administration was covering up the truth about Benghazi that they decided that they had to have their own investigation and their own report. Well, be careful what you wish for.

Here's what Lindsay Graham was saying about the investigation as recently as this past Monday, before the report was released:

I’ve been calling for this for two years. Trey Gowdy and Elijah Cummings have done a good job. What I would envision is a select committee being formed in the Senate of members from the appropriate committees instead of a stovepipe approach. We would create a select committee in the Senate to marry up with the select committee in the House, become a joint select committee, bootstrap on the work already done by the House, and take this to its logical conclusion.

Funnily enough, when the investigation came to its logical conclusion, here's what Graham is saying now: “I think the report is full of crap,” Graham said on CNN's “State of the Union.”

I don't really expect you to read the whole thing, but here are some of the highlights:

Republican claim: HusseinHillaryObamaClinton wouldn't let anyone go to rescue the Americans!

Report: The Committee first concludes that the CIA ensured sufficient security for CIA facilities in Benghazi, and, without a requirement to do so, ably and bravely assisted the State Department on the night of the attacks. Their actions saved lives. Appropriate U.S. personnel made reasonable tactical decisions that night, and the Committee found no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support.“

Republican claim: This was caused by an intelligence failure.

Report: “[T]he Committee finds that there was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks.”

Republican claim: The Administration lied about a movie protest to cover up the facts.

Report: “The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence.”

Republican claim: The administration threatened, intimidated, or fired people for telling the truth.

Report: [T]he Committee found no evidence that any officer was intimidated, wrongly forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement or otherwise kept from speaking to Congress, or polygraphed because of their presence in Benghazi.

There's more in the report, but these are the key findings: what the Republicans have claimed for two years has been unfounded, if not outright lies. All we need to do now is wait for them, starting with Lindsay Graham and John McCain, to come out an publicly admit that they were wrong and President Obama and his administration were right.

But you Republicans who read this don't have to wait, you can go ahead and admit it right now.

Republicans have made much of their victories in the 2016 election.

Vermont Republicans have had to extend that to near-victories in order to get a similar bang for their buck, because Vermont remains solidly in Democratic hands.

That doesn’t stop the Vermont GOP from making wild claims about an imaginary mandate for their cuts-not-revenue agenda.  As has been repeatedly discussed on GMD, this is a dangerously mis-drawn conclusion, no matter who is doing the drawing.

Organizationally, they caught the Dems napping, as they themselves have been doing over the past few election cycles. I rather doubt that this will happen again in 2016.

It remains instructive, nonetheless, to look at the mechanisms by which the VGOP gathered itself for a much improved election performance this year.

Exhibit A in this case would be American Majority.

Established in 2008, the somewhat presumptuously titled American Majority is a right wing recruitment and training organization that gave the Tea Party its wings and aims to put a conservative in every political office from side judge to POTUS.  

AM is closely tied to the Koch brothers and steeped in special interest funding:

According to a 2010 article in AlterNet, and Ned Ryun himself, over 75% of the funding for American Majority comes from the Sam Adams Alliance. In 2008, the year in which American Majority was founded, 88% of the alliance’s money came from a single donation of $3.7 million.

‘Guess whose $3.7 mil that was.

Immediately after the election this year, American Majority trumpeted the headline:

17 TRAINED NEW LEADERS WIN IN VERMONT

I haven’t taken a count but I’d guess they’re claiming credit for every new Republican office holder in the state…and that is truly interesting!

said Matt Robbins, President of American Majority.”Since opening our Vermont office this year, we have trained 252 new leaders and activists. American Majority Vermont is helping to ensure that candidates who believe in smaller government have the tools to be successful in their campaigns. We are thrilled to see these strong results in Vermont.”

I wonder how many of our newly elected Vermont Republicans appreciate being tagged by the infamous Koch brothers?

Among the tips provided to candidates on the AM website is

How to “go negative” without getting nasty.

The last of the 10 rules provided in this section is the advice to never make reference to your opponent’s voting record or issue stances if you aren’t 100% certain of what they are.

At least one successful Republican candidate in Vermont seems to have gotten the negativity training, but decided to skip rule #10.

Running successfully for the Franklin 7 House seat, Larry Fiske relied heavily on negative campaigning against Democratic/Progressive incumbent Cindy Weed.

He told the voters that Weed was anti-gun, anti-property-tax-rebates, opposed to welfare reform and planning to tax people’s wells.

NONE OF WHICH WAS TRUE.

Thanks to American Majority, it would not surprise me to learn that  this scene played out in districts all over the state where Republicans unseated incumbents.

Unfortunately, there are no consequences associated with lying to the voting public.  If a candidate has the gall to say something untrue about his opponent, and is given the means to say it often enough; if media can’t be bothered to fact-check the claim, people will simply assume that it’s true.

So who really knows what the voters thought they were endorsing when they voted for Republican candidates this November?  

No new taxes. Governor Shumlin has ruled out submitting a budget that raises taxes to mitigate an anticipated budget shortfall.

VPR reports that a select group of legislators received Shumlin’s latest no-new-taxes pledge straight from the lips of (soon-to-be-former) Administration Secretary Jeb Spaulding:

Administration Secretary Jeb Spaulding told the group that simply addressing this problem with new revenue represents a onetime solution to an ongoing problem. That's why Spaulding says the administration will present a budget that doesn't include any tax increases. Instead, the plan will reduce the growth rate in state spending.

But this is no real surprise, we were warned (or assured depending on your tax bracket) by Governor Shumlin almost from the start.

Frankly, he told us who he favored in 2011:

“The state of Vermont does not have the flexibility to do that [raise VT income taxes] because we all know New Hampshire is to our east and Florida is not far away and frankly my job is to take the 435 high-income tax payers in Vermont and grow that base, grow our customer base so that we have more revenue.” [added emphasis]

What will they suggest for now to close the budget shortfall? Maybe some old ideas are stored away — let’s see, yup, here’s a few in the bottom of this barrel — oh here’s a couple “winners”: Taxing break-open lottery tickets, the kind sold in social clubs and bars. Or maybe this one: fiddle with err … trade-off the  “too generous” EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) benefits to cover child care costs.

Maybe this one way down in the bottom: legalize casino gambling. Perhaps there could be floating casinos on Lake Champlain. In fairness that one wasn’t Shumlin’s, but it’s got to be from the bottom of the same barrel of make-the-poor-and-working-class-pay budget tricks.

It looks like Canadian oil expediter Enbridge may want to rethink its strategy for moving tar sands oil to east coast refineries.  

Despite widespread objections from groups both north and south of the border, the company  had planned on reversing the flow on existing pipeline in order to move tar sands oil eastward to Montreal.  

Despite early denials, it was generally believed that, in a later phase, the company would most certainly attempt the same reverse flow in order to direct oil southeast from Montreal,  passing through Vermont and New Hampshire on its way to Portland, Maine and U.S. coastal refineries.

Anticipating that possibility, Jim Murphy, senior counsel for the National Wildlife Federation said in a statement last March:

“A spill would have a devastating impact on our water supplies, wildlife habitat and tourism industry. And any transport of tar sands through Vermont would encourage growth of an industry that contradicts all of our state’s leadership and hard work on moving toward cleaner sources of energy.”

Reversing pipeline flow may prove to be a much tougher sell now.   PHMSA,  the Federal regulatory body that overseas pipeline transport  has just released a bulletin cautioning pipeline operators about the risk of environmental spills  associated with the practice of reversing flow in an existing pipeline.

This does not come as news to pipeline opponents who have insisted that the redirected pipelines would be vulnerable to leaks, both for mechanical reasons and because the composition of tar sands oil makes it far more corrosive than the oil that these pipelines have customarily carried. The PHMSA findings confirm that they have been right all along.

PHMSA said the advisory was triggered in part by last year’s oil spills involving two reversed pipelines, ExxonMobil’s Pegasus tar sands line in Arkansas and the Tesoro Logistics line in North Dakota. Those accidents, as well as “other information PHMSA has become aware of” led the agency to issue the alert, the bulletin said.

Although the advisory was not accompanied by new regulations, it did lay out a list of “tests, precautions and adjustments”  that the pipeline operators would be expected to observe if they undertake to use existing pipeline in this manner.

Anyone familiar with the current practices of federal regulatory bodies knows that they almost universally maintain an exceedingly light touch on the industries they are charged with overseeing.  It is therefore all the more alarming that the PHMSA would be so emphatic in its expression of concern.

In another time, before politics made any hint of regulatory zeal taboo, the practice of reversing pipeline flow might have been banned outright.

If it is not sufficient cause to deny pipeline passage across Vermont’s vulnerable landscapes simply because of our state’s commitment to clean energy, this latest finding should raise enough immediate concern about the practice to allow even our least heroic political leaders to get on board with a ban.

Thought this bar graph might be kind of interesting.

Since Nov. 10, Fox News Channel has referenced Gruber at least 779 times on air, while MSNBC has referred to Gruber 79 times. CNN has mentioned Gruber just 27 times over the same period. [added emphasis]

The numbers are all likely higher because they don’t account for errors in the closed captioning transcription.

A mention is defined as any time Gruber’s name is said on air within a one-minute window.

Remember the Fairness Doctrine – honest, equitable and balanced?  The Museum of Broadcast History explains:

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio stations being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective.

Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate. [added emphasis]

When I woke up this morning to crisp air and sunshine; first, I thanked God that I don’t live in Buffalo; then I reflected on the fact that in barely the time since my grandfather was born we have managed to screw up the planet so badly that it may never  recover.

Of course that rather melodramatic framing of big-snow-before-Thanksgiving was largely a product of having spent yesterday steeped in forums on environmental challenges.  

In the morning, I accompanied departing Enosburg Rep. Cindy Weed to the UVM hosted Legislative Policy Summit on Climate Change.  We did a little election post-mortem on the drive, and I will share some of that in a later diary, but my takeaway from symposium sessions was to hope and work for the best, but plan in any case for the worst.

We are no longer looking at that magic ceiling of 350 parts per million that just a few short years ago still represented an achievable limit.  Now it’s 500 parts per million and, with characters like climate change denying SenatorJames Inhofe holding the controls, it seems less and less likely that the EPA will be given funding necessary to pursue even the insufficient limits agreed upon by President Obama in his recent pact with China.

The Summit was a great opportunity to learn how the State of Vermont is girding itself for the challenges that lie ahead, so my choice was to attend workshops re: planning for impacts on vulnerable populations and understanding Vermont’s Climate Assessment.

The Climate Assessment is a project of the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics and the University of Vermont, with contributions from a number of partners, including the Agency of Natural Resources.  The VCA is sort of a tool box for building a 3-dimensional understanding of climate change as it impacts our little state.

Vermont is the first state to undertake such an assessment.  After an introduction to the VCA resource by Gillian Galford,  ANR Secretary Deb Markowitz shared her perspective on how this new resource can be used to shape Vermont’s path through the unfolding climate challenges that lie ahead.

I realized that I have never before had the opportunity to listen to Secy. Markowitz when she was not campaigning for office.  That is a real shame because I discovered an energetic, articulate, highly intelligent agency head who is still passionate about her commitment to the environment but nimble enough

to make the practical case that could recruit even some doubters.

I was impressed and wondered later to Cindy where that Deb Markowitz had been hiding in the 2010 gubernatorial campaign.  Certainly, others had seen it even when I had not.  The serious money was on Markowitz in the early days of the primary race.

You’ve got to wonder if having her public persona micro-managed by campaign strategists didn’t have the opposite of the desired effect, muffling her authentic capability with a lot of over-disciplined message control.

She often sounded canned in those stump speeches, and even a little doubtful.  That is not what I heard yesterday.

I think she could be our next governor.

But I digress…

In the afternoon, Cindy and I returned to St. Albans to attend the two hour public meeting held in the Bliss Auditorium by the EPA and the State to discuss  new TMDL  standards (Total Maximum Daily Load) for Lake Champlain and how those standards might be achieved.  David Mears, commissioner of the Vermont Dept. of Environmental Conservation was on hand to anchor the conversation.

It was encouraging to see the auditorium packed to the hilt, and that the audience was engaged and respectful. There was none of the blamesmanship that has occasionally erupted at meetings where regulatory issues concerning the lake have been discussed.

In fact,  the most recent blue-green algae bloom was so threatening to lake home owners, farmers and the local economy…all contributors to the problem… that everyone seems to be getting on board with the idea that discharges must be strictly regulated.

So all in all, it was a mixed-news day with the overarching message that inaction to protect the environment from human impacts is no longer an option.

I didn’t pay much attention to the news that broke recently that an adviser to the ACA (Obamacare, Romneycare) and Vermont’s planned “single-payer” program has found himself in a kerfuffle fueled by rightwing opponents of the healthcare act. Jonathon Gruber, the MIT economist and healthcare expert, apparently planted both his feet in his mouth, possibly even more than once. Nationally a video captured him making some very ill-advised remarks about Obamacare.

And it was stupid too, according to former Obama aide David Axelrod, who tweeted:

if you looked up "stupid" in dictionary, you'd find Gruber's picture.

However, some of what Gruber said that has inflamed critics in the video about CBO (Congressional Budget Office) scoring may actually be mistaken.

[Gruber] was incorrect about the CBO’s treatment of the individual mandate. Whether you called the fine for not carrying insurance a “tax” or a “penalty,” it got scored the same way, as generating revenue.

But I don’t intend to go into the deep weeds surrounding that part of the Gruber kerfuffle. And since he has a lucrative contract with the state of Vermont running through February 2015, there is a local angle to the kerfuffle.    

The Campaign for Vermont has taken the opportunity  Gruber handed them to pile on and fundraise locally on the national anti-healthcare/Gruber frenzy. This shouldn’t be surprising, as delaying Vermont’s healthcare was one of Campaign for Vermont’s founder Bruce Lisman’s first public positions.  While he has bankrolled the Cfor VT from the start, he recently stepped aside from policy leadership, although he may still be hold some influence.

In one of his early policy talks in 2011, Lisman suggested that Vermont could not afford health care (or renewable energy programs) and recommended that it should be delayed indefinitely. Back then he cited uncertainty (the businessman’s favorite phantasm) over Irene recovery costs as the reason for the delay.

So now the Campaign for Vermont carries on his anti-healthcare cause with an online petition (donation button included) calling for Gruber’s contract with Vermont to be revoked.

A second Gruber-in-Vermont story, that was in the news in 2011, was simply an attempt to be funny. His remark, although “flip” for official testimony, does have a little humor to it and maybe a bit of insight too.    

In the 2011 video of testimony before a Vermont legislative hearing on the new Vermont healthcare law, Gruber is questioned by the committee Chairman. The Rep. reads a lengthy constituent comment expressing:  

a Vermonter’s concerns about the law— “ballooning costs, increased taxes, bureaucratic outrages, shabby facilities, disgruntled providers, long waiting times, lower-quality care, special interest nest-feathering and destructive wages and price controls” — Gruber joked: “Was this written by my adolescent children by any chance?

The remark was met with uproarious laughter in the committee room.  

The question was not written by an ordinary adolescent but was submitted by John McClaughry, Ethan Allen Institute founder, a former Vermont state senator and long-ago adviser to President Ronald Reagan.  

No demands or petitions calling for Jonathon Gruber to apologize to adolescents for comparing them to John McClaughry have been made.  

Well, at least not yet – let’s wait for the latest anti-healthcare storyline to run its course.  

On one side of the coin you have the Shumlin administration awarding FairPoint the State’s emergency 911 communications service contract. FairPoint Communications’ winning, low bid was $2.5 million less than those of two competing firms.The contract runs for five years and is worth $11 million. Secretary of Administration Jeb Spaulding is confident in the deal. Vtdigger.com reports: 

[Spaulding] said FairPoint was the only bidder willing to commit to all of the state’s performance requirements, and that the state felt secure in its contractual protections.

Huh, the other bidding companies wouldn’t commit to meeting the state’s contract requirements? The five-year contract took effect last week on November 5.

 Flip the coin and you find a different, much less assuring FairPoint, one with a long history of poor service, bankruptcy, and troubled labor relations in New England. Not just here in Vermont but many in Maine are experiencing outage problems.

David Tucker, executive director of the Enhanced 9-1-1 Board said he was aware of the residential service issues, but that the 9-1-1 service is a different product. Despite being under the management of the same company, he said he does not expect the emergency services to be subject to the same weaknesses.

However the Dept of Public Service says the state will open an investigation into the large number of complaints about poor service against FairPoint. Only a few years out of bankruptcy, the company is still struggling and trimming costs to become profitable. Management's pre-strike claims to have ramped up non-union and contingency workers to address any emergencies have proven wrong as longterm outages have become common.

Union workers at Fairpoint are now on strike in three states over management demands that members agree to another round of benefit and pension cuts. Since the strike began four weeks ago almost 250 service-related complaints have been made about the company. The volume of phone service problems has raised concerns about emergency medical response coverage.

James Porter, director of telecommunications with the Vermont Department of Public Service says […] he expects the state will launch a formal investigation into [Fairpoint's] service practices next month. “For years and years, the phone company has been subject to automatic penalties for failure to make service quality metrics. [Note: the state has no jurisdiction over broadband complaints]

Dept. of Public Services’ Porter adds that rather than impose a penalty, he would like to find the “root cause of a problem” and fix it, as companies view fines as “a cost of doing business”

In the recent past, the state of Vermont has given the company a little help handling penalties — their “cost of doing business.” In 2012 Vermont Public Service Board waived millions of dollars in accumulated poor service-related penalties for the company. The agreement, part of a restructuring plan, allowed $7 million in assessed unpaid penalties to be redirected by FairPoint for statewide broadband build-out.

 Now with a little more Vermont help the coin comes up good for FairPoint. They squeeze concessions out of labor union members, provide poor service, bid low and then, as a reward, land a valuable state contract.

Heads they win — tails we lose?