Scott Milne planned a press conference this morning. He then canceled it. Prior to canceling direct communication with the press and Vermonters, Mr. Milne was expected to acknowledge the fact that Governor Peter Shumlin won an incontestable plurality of the votes.

Given the fact that Governor Shumlin was the first choice of the Vermont voters, Mr. Milne was expected to concede the election he lost. He was also expected to confirm that he will not campaign for a legislative second-place elevation into the Governor's office. Instead Mr. Milne was going to acknowledge and accept the fact that the General Assembly will affirm Governor Shumlin's reelection in January 2015.

Then came a last minute change of heart. Later this morning, Mr. Milne's campaign stated that he “owed” it to Vermonters to see the final totals before his campaign makes any further statements.

Translation of the Milne campaign statement (as of the time of Mr. Milne's press conference about-face):

“As of early this morning, Governor Shumlin leads by over 2,000 votes.  With another 1,500 to 2,000 votes to be counted, I owe it to Vermonters to see the final count. I will therefore wait to see whether I receive 200% to 300% of the outstanding votes, I will wait to see whether Governor Shumlin receives anywhere between 2,000 to 3,000 negative votes.”  I owe it to Vermonters to wait for this potential outcome.

With 96.16% of the vote in, it appears that having two Republicans on the ticket has cost the Vermont GOP the governorship.  Dan Feliciano’s 4.37% of the vote total would have given Scott Milne a victory over Peter Shumlin.

In a deeply blue state, Peter Shumlin should look at these results as a strong rebuke to his performance as governor (hint…. VT Health Connect) and personality (hint… the shady land deal with his impoverished neighbor).

Combined with Phil Scott’s resounding defeat of Dean Corren, Democrat’s should be very wary of their hold on power.  If Republicans should ever resolve their fixation with damning immigrants, gay and lesbians, and anyone else who looks to be not white and male, the Democrats could quickly find themselves out of favor.

Vermont Republicans seem to be elated by the surprisingly strong showing of their gubernatorial candidate, Scott Milne, but in the light of an unseasonably warm day, they must be thinking of what might have been.

A year ago, maybe more–I know that it was before the whole world knew that Chris Christie was the kind of guy who would cause massive traffic jams just to get even with his enemies–a friend and I were talking about a bold move that had the potential to pay off big for both Phil Scott and Chris Christie.

Here's the way the plan would work: Phil Scott sits down with Chris Christie, the head of the Republican Governors' Association, and gets Christie to funnel megabucks into a Scott run for governor. The up side for both of them is clear: Scott, universally recognized as a nice guy, capitalizes on Shumlin's vulnerabilities and wins before it's his turn. Christie's a kingmaker, if on a small stage, and shows Republican primary voters across the country that he can deliver, and that a conservative, socially moderate governor can win a tough election. As I say, a big win for both Scott and Christie.

Of course, it didn't happen. Scott is temperamentally averse to bold moves, and he coasted to an easy win in his reelection bid. Christie was not much of a player in Vermont, and election results across the country showed that every Republican who won a governor's race was the most vicious and extreme of right-wingers.

Meanwhile, the actual Republican nominee was the only guy who didn't have the presence of mind to take two steps back when they asked for volunteers, and he did better than anyone expected.

But if Scott had been the nominee he would have won.

There will be election news tonight, but first the latest on the Gannett rag formerly known as the Burlington Free Press.

According to Seven Days, and confirmed by the Facebook feeds of the two reporters involved, the Burlington Free Press has decided it’s no longer interested in being a real newspaper.  

Nancy Remsen and Terri Hallenbeck, who make up the Burlington Free Press two-person Statehouse bureau, are leaving the paper, according to sources close to the situation. The circumstances surrounding the departures are not entirely clear, nor is their timing. Both reporters filed stories in Tuesday’s Free Press and would normally helm the paper’s election night coverage.

Nancy Remsen posts:

Tomorrow will end 40 years of reporting for daily newspapers in Maine and Vermont. It has been a great run that is ending a little earlier than I wanted — but so be it. Ready for a new chapter. Any suggestions?

And from Terri Hallenbeck:

Today, I am covering my last election for the Burlington Free Press.

Later this week, for the first time since 1986, I will no longer be employed at a daily newspaper. I can assure you there is nothing easy about this for me.

This was not just a job for me, but a lifestyle. Being a journalist is as much a part of me as my red hair and freckles. It is where I met my husband. It is a profession I have been unable to shake despite the bad hours, relatively low pay and obvious signs in recent years of the industry’s decline.

This chapter of it, at least, is over though. I have opted against staying at the Burlington Free Press.Some of you may have heard that the Free Press and all Gannett newspapers rewrote all newsroom job descriptions and required employees to apply for the new jobs, which focus on pursuing the most popular stories as measured by website clicks.

That no longer seems to include many of the stories I’ve had the pleasure of covering the last 10 years as a Statehouse/political reporter at the Free Press.  

It breaks my journalistic heart, but I can no longer pretend it’s not happening.

It has been a great privilege for me to have a front-row seat to Vermont’s unfolding history. I’m thankful for all the readers who let my words share their breakfast table. I’m grateful to all the people who trusted me with their stories. I know there were times I disappointed you. There were times I disappointed me too, but I never took this special job for granted.

There is significant irony in the fact that my departure comes during election week. You might think stories about elections, candidates and issues are important, but those stories typically attract far fewer web hits than stories about the latest crime, caper or car crash.  Newspapers are now armed with data that make this crystal clear.

As some of you know, my departure from the Free Press is not the only one this week or this year. This newspaper, like many, has bid premature goodbyes to all too many good people. The Internet has not only turned news stories into click bait, it has led people to believe they can obtain their news free of charge. If we believe that, we will get the world we are asking for; one that is less well-informed, less open to hearing new ideas from new angles.

My soon-to-be-former colleagues, including my husband, will continue to try to do good work as they strive to make sense of their new world order. I wish them nothing but the best.

I leave the Free Press without knowing my next step. That is unsettling, even scary.

It’s time to take the next step, though.  It’s time to see life from another angle.

It now appears that this was foreordained by last month’s announcement that the Free Press was going to throw everybody overboard and let them all try to swim for the lifeboats.

Especially when you read Hallenbeck’s comments about giving up serious journalism for clickbait it’s going to be pretty hard to take the local Gannett franchise seriously.

Or, for that matter, to keep subscribing.

I would be happy to wager a drink (double bourbon) against any and all on the following Vermont Election Day predictions.  Closest one, per race, wins.  Any takers?

Governor:

52% Shumlin-Democrat

40.5% Milne-Republican

5.2% Feliciano-Libertarian (Libertarian Party Wins Major Party Status)

1% Payton-Independent

0.5% Diomondstone-Liberty Union

0.4% Cris Ericson-Really Crazy

0.4% The Other Bernie-Independent

Lt Gov:

66.1% Scott-Republican

33.6% Corren-Progressive

0.3% Brown-Liberty Union

Secretary of State:

85.6% Condos-Democrat

8.4% Eastwood-Progressive

6% Herbert-Liberty Union (Liberty Union Retains Major Party Status)

Treasurer:

90% Pearse-Democrat

7.5% Schramm-Progressive

2.5% Ngoima-Liberty Union

Auditor:

99% Hoffer-Progressive/Democrat

1% or less, Write-In

Attorney General:

58% Sorrell-Democrat

39% McCormack-Republican

3% Jackowski-Liberty Union

U.S. House of Representatives:

72.3% Welch-Democrat

24.1% Donka-Republican

1% Jerry Trudell-Energy Independence

0.9% Andrews-Liberty Union

0.8% Cris Ericson-Really Crazy (Again)

What were we just saying about the attendant risks to removing fuel assemblies from the spent fuel pool at Vermont Yankee?

Here’s another twist to keep VY watchers worried.

The NRC has stepped-in to nix some impromptu modification to VY’s heavy duty fuel lifting crane.

The next-to-last quarterly safety inspection at Vermont Yankee has turned up three low-level safety violations, including a plan by Entergy to change the crane’s electrical controls…The NRC said the change would have compromised the “independence of the redundant upper travel limits” of the crane.

Reprising its performance as the clueless innocent, one last time, Entergy maintains that it was just trying to improve the crane and didn’t think the changes required NRC approval.  

Thankfully, the NRC inspection happened upon the modification before the crane was engaged to relocate spent fuel.

In the wake of this latest test of confidence some may recall a 2008 incident at VY (during the first off-loading of spent fuel to dry cask storage), in which the brakes on the crane failed to engage properly causing it to come dangerously close to dropping a load of high level radioactive waste.

It’s difficult to believe that the attempted “modification” isn’t symptomatic of a bailing wire and duct-tape approach to problem solving at the geriatric plant that will only worsen in the months and years between shut-down and full decommissioning.

NRC Spokesman Neil Sheehan downplays the seriousness of the situation, pointing out that the modified crane had not yet been engaged to move spent fuel.

However, Sheehan did acknowledge that

‘Entergy implemented the change to the crane control system that removed redundancy, increasing the likelihood of occurrence of a malfunction that could result in damage to spent fuel”….(with) “more than a minimal increase in the likelihood of occurrence of a malfunction of a system, structure or component important to safety.”

Commissioner of Public Service, Chris Recchia was considerably less sanguine about all of the violations.

“We just want to get to the end of December,” he said. “I am concerned when these things happen, and this is fundamentally why we want the plant to close,” he said. “It’s just another indication it needs to just close.”

All the more reason why Entergy should not get the Emergency Planning waiver it has recently requested.

___________________________________________________________________________________

As always, despite my ongoing work with Fairewinds Energy Education (in a non-technical capacity), whatever I write on Green Mountain Daily reflects my own personal opinion and observations.  These do not necessarily coincide with those of my Fairewinds co-workers.

UPDATE: Thanks to ACLU-VT director Allen Gilbert for this piece of information:

Remember last legislative session when advocates were lobbying for a new law regulating Tasers? Here's a crucial provision of the law that the Burlington Police apparently overlooked: 

Any ideas on how they're going to weasel out of this one? 

You've probably heard the stories and seen the video of the arrest over the weekend in Burlington, where the police violently took down a young idiot who had allegedly assaulted someone else and tried to climb a telephone pole, right?

 The way the story goes, at least the way the police are telling it, they were using reasonable force to apprehend Shane Langevin. People who are sharing and commenting a video on Youtube claim the video shows police brutality.

We've learned that the first version we get of events like this is often wrong. It's entirely possible, once more videos from different perspectives are available, that the use of force will have been justified. I'm not prepared to state an opinion on that question right now.

I do think, though, that there are two important questions to ask.

First, what was the justification for the use of the taser? According to the Free Press, here's what the police say about that:

 “Langevin was able to escape my grasp and began to run away,” Czyzewski wrote in the affidavit. “Officer Rabideau deployed his Taser, striking Langevin in the lower back and upper buttocks; this caused Langevin to fall to the ground.”

 My first question is why they couldn't have apprehended him by, you know, running after him. Related to that is why they used potentially deadly force to apprehend a potentially intoxicated misdemeanor suspect who was apparently not attempting to harm or assault either the officers involved or anyone else on the scene.

My second question comes directly from the video. If you watch the video, at about 13-14 seconds you will hear a male voice shouting twice “Turn it off!” It's not clear at this point whose voice it is or what he's talking about, but my initial impression was that the officer is yelling at the bystanders to turn off the video camera.

If this is borne out by investigation it raises serious questions about police misconduct. Citizen videos have grown important for  recording and exposing questionable police conduct, and there is no question that in Vermont the people have a right to record a police officer in public. Police officers have no business interfering with lawful recording, or ordering the citizens to stop.

I'll be interested in watching how the investigation comes out. 

So, think you could count how many times you’ve heard the following or something similar during this election campaign season? “We have to create a more business-friendly climate in Vermont – taxing industries creates a negative image.” Perhaps we’ll hear that even more often after the election as the state tries to charm promises from Global Foundries, the soon-to-be new owners of IBM’s Essex manufacturing plant.    

Recently when speaking about giving a particular business a tax break Lt. Gov. Phil Scott said  “It doesn’t cost us much.” But how do we know that? Government giveaways – tax abatements, cash grants, loan or loan guarantees – are difficult to document and often not thoroughly tracked. Well that may be about to change.    

New accounting rules, changes that are called “huge” are being proposed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The changes would require that states and local governments report corporate tax incentives as lost income.  

"If you care about school finance or smart growth or regionalism or land use in general, this data will enable you to figure things out that were unthinkable before.” Says Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First.    

The proposed tax abatement disclosure requirements would include:    

The tax being abated  

Criteria that must be met for the taxpayer to be eligible for the abatement  

Provisions for recapturing abated taxes  

The types of commitments made by tax abatement recipients  

Number of tax abatement agreements  

Dollar amount of taxes abated  

Other commitments made by a government, such as to build infrastructure assets.  

Also of note is the provision requiring governments to report the criteria that businesses must meet for the abatement and how governments will get that money back if the goals aren't achieved, commonly referred to as clawback provisions.

A  New York Times study in 2012 showed combined federal and state government incentives to corporations give up $170 billion per year. By state, Vermont’s giveaways weren’t at the top but the study showed the state has (as the saying goes) skin in the corporate incentive game.  

The Vermont giveaways to businesses come from somewhere (check your wallet), and collectively they can take a bite out of stressed state and local budgets. Tax incentives for corporations versus money for schools or services – the GASB accounting changes could make the choice that clear.

And since the VTGOP is campaigning on affordability let’s just see how affordable all those corporate tax breaks are for the rest of us. So, when you start adding it up as lost revenue, it may become increasing hard to believe as Lt. Gov. Scott claims that “It doesn’t cost us much,”

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

The hard work of many candidates during this election has been admirable. These times call for serious leaders, those who are willing to stand up against fear- not those who use it to win elections. These are tough economic times, but we have turned the corner in many parts of our economy and I’m proud to have worked to bring jobs and economic progress to our region. I’m asking for another two years in the Vermont House so that I can continue to be an effective advocate for our future success.

The opening of the parking garage was a milestone on the long road to revitalization and is proof of what we can do when we work together toward common goals as a community. The word “affordable” has been tossed around by those who think that the investments we are responsible for in our children, in our health, and in infrastructure should be shirked so that we can push them on to another generation. Austerity in these areas would be the death of our long-term economic development. While we can’t spend our way out of recession, we can and have worked to build public-private partnerships where smart investments lead to jobs in our region.

There are irresponsible candidates this year who make the claim that Democrats are trying to take away Medicare benefits. This claim is preposterous. It’s the kind of falsehood that confuses voters and casts doubt. There are plenty of concerns about the future of healthcare in Vermont, but cutting benefits to seniors is not one of them. Why would the party who has worked to expand healthcare affordability and accessibility to all take away Medicare benefits? We recently passed legislation clarifying that Vermont’s Green Mountain Care would not “take over” Medicare and cut benefits.

I want my daughter to grow up in a Vermont with good schools, with strong communities and a growing economy. Those who use fear as their ally are trying to convince us that if we tighten our belts things will get better. Things get better when we share our talents, our wealth and our hope so that we can build a better future. It’s not surprising that these candidates have been supported by out of state interests who will profit when they cut programs we rely on, continue policies that keep wages down and lower taxes for the wealthy.

So, let’s say the worst happens on Tuesday and the politics of fear prevail. The handful of candidates who make it to Montpelier on promises to slash budgets across the board, stop healthcare reform and shut down critical parts of government are going to have a hard time making good on these overblown promises. Being an effective legislator is a lot less about the “fight” of the campaign and a lot more about compromise, deal-making and listening.

I trust that years of service in this community won’t be traded in for a cheap future. We all want to live in a Vermont where we pass a quality of life and community values from generation to generation. On Tuesday, don’t sell our future out cheap. Let’s find truly affordable ways to move beyond these challenging times- policies that work.

We can change the way we finance our schools and our healthcare so that we can provide better services at a lower cost. We can repower our state, and our nation so that we no longer have to rely on dirty, dangerous energy. Our future belongs to those who embrace hope, not fear. I believe in this community and this state. Let’s find real solutions and keep our community rolling forward. We can’t afford not to.

Representative Mike McCarthy

Saint Albans

Here's a pre-election quiz for you.

 Which of the following is trying to reduce the Democratic majority in the Senate?

a. Republican Party chair David Sunderland.

b. Republican Lieutenant Governor Phil Scott.

c. Democratic Senator Dick Mazza.

Okay, it was a trick question. The answer is (d), all of the above.

Yes, Dick Mazza, We've had diaries about him here before, because this is far from the first time that he's taken the other side in important elections. For instance four years ago, when Peter Shumlin was in his first run for governor, Mazza gave his support and real estate to Brian Dubie. This year, Mazza is one of a trio of conservative Senate Democrats supporting Phil Scott in his reelection effort for Lite Gov.

And now there's this. The election is the day after tomorrow and Mazza has kindly provided a quote in Pat McDonald's Times Argus ad for her Washington County Senate campaign, a campaign in which she is challenging the two Democratic incumbents, Ann Cummings and Anthony Pollina. (No, I'm not linking to the other side's political ads.) The Washington County Senate race is getting a lot of attention because some observers see it as one of the Republicans' best chances to pick up a Senate seat and chip away at the Democratic majority. It remains to be seen whether McDonald can get enough support outside of her base in the “B” towns (Barre City, Barre Town, and Berlin) to win the election, but who wants to take that chance?

 It's no secret where my loyalties lie. I'm the chair of the Washington County Democrats and I spend my time working to elect Democratic candidates and trying to get other Washington County Democrats to get out and support our candidates as well. When we have an office holder from Colchester, who is getting support from the state and local parties in his reelection campaign, reaching out to Washington County, supporting Republicans, and attacking the Democratic majority, that's just wrong.