Tag Archives: Burlington

Burlington’s Open Meeting Problem

local/regional, , , , , ,

‘Sounds like it’s time for Sec. of State Jim Condos to bring his celebrated
Transparency Tour to the big city of Burlington.

I used to think Franklin County was the poster child for dodgy open-meeting practices, but this week, Miro Weinberger and company seem to be giving FC a run for its money.

On GMD, we’ve long questioned the wisdom of locating F-35 fighter planes in the densely populated area that is Burlington Airport. We’ve read the well-articulated concerns of neighbors and the glaringly deficient conclusions of officialdom.

We know that Burlington probably wouldn’t even have been considered for the siting if it were not for the concentrated efforts of Senator Leahy, the Chittenden County political elite and the development community, which seems to play a central role in local decision making.

Even assuming the best of intentions on the part of all of these interested parties, legitimate public concerns always seem to get short-shrift.

When such a controversial topic is discussed before City Councilors, one would think there would be special care taken to ensure that the rules governing open meetings are scrupulously observed, even to the point of over-compensation.

Even though the notice posted announcing the meeting stated that “no Council business will be discussed,” a quorum of Councilors was present (the minimum number of Councilors necessary to conduct Council business), and that of and by itself triggers the ‘open meeting’ requirement and all the rules associated with an open meeting.

To say that no Council business would be discussed is a bit disingenuous in any case, as a presentation by the Guard would undoubtedly involve some mention of the F-35 siting and questions and answers of interest to the public who are engaged on either side of the issue.

It is my understanding that, to remain within the confines of Open Meeting Law, either the public must be free to attend, or the number of Councilors in attendance must be below the number required to conduct a legal vote. If a quorum must be in attendance, the Council has no choice but to gavel a meeting before the public.

After that, if it can be justified under the limitations governing open meetings, the Council may go into Executive Session, excluding the public from the conversation. But there are strict rules governing the circumstances under which Executive Session may be convened. I believe the only allowable reasons are to discuss a city employee or legal matters which my be adversely affected by premature disclosure. They should be prepared to summarily explain why Executive Session is justified, and they must come out of Executive Session if a vote is to be taken.

In any case, maintaining public trust should be paramount in any question of excluding citizens from a Council gathering.

While the Secretary of States office is relatively powerless in enforcing open meeting rules, Jim Condos has recognized that Vermont has a problem in that area, and initiated his annual “Transparency Tour” not long after he took office.

Since receiving a polite reminder of the obligation to follow the open meeting rules a couple of years ago, I am happy to say that the City of St. Albans appears to have become much more conscientious. Apparently, the same cannot necessarily be said of Burlington.

As I have discovered, there is little legal recourse for the aggrieved in the event of an open meeting violation, so it is not surprising to learn that

“None of the community members…are currently pursuing any action.”

Five hundred bugged buses

local/regional, National, , , ,

Here in Vermont recently there has been a flurry of reports over privacy concerns with the free public Wi-Fi’s foot traffic tracking system at the Church Street Market Place installed almost a year ago. But that’s just pedestrian compared to the secretly bugged public buses in Maryland. Apparently the Maryland Transit Administration didn’t think twice of secretly recording conversations on 500 of its public buses starting at least three years ago.

busrecorde 2Here in Vermont, questions remain about the extent that Burlington’s city supplied free Wi-Fi  utilizes monitoring capabilities above and beyond the impressive shopper foot traffic tracking system. VtDigger and VPR news both had good pieces exploring the privacy issue.

Unfortunately Vermont Edition didn’t ask Burlington Mayor Weinberger about it when they had him on the program a day or two later. Maybe there will be follow-up next time allows.The only sure way around tracking at the Church Street Market Place is not carrying a cell phone or other device at all to solve privacy worries in Burlington.

But on public buses in Maryland you better talk at a whisper or not at all if you want privacy.

Probably unbeknownst to many riders, the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) has been recording sound, as well as video, on 487 of its 771 buses, starting in 2013, in the name of safety and customer service. So are cities like Atlanta and San Francisco. In fact, the ability to record sight and sound comes standard on most new bus fleets being bought by city and state transit agencies.

The MTA says secretly recording conversations on buses is just another investigative tool and in addition they are able to secretly check the bus driver and monitor customer service, these are the added benefits. Nearly all new buses come equipped for audio surveillance but how many municipalities use them isn’t often reported.

Apollo Video Technology manufacturer of the listening devices defends the eavesdropping: Chief Operating Officer April Johnson, as a way to check the quality of driver and customer service. And, they insist, the listening devices aren’t overly intrusive or in violation of riders’ privacy.[added emphasis]

The standard rationale for this, heard almost every time a privacy question is raised goes like this: “…lawmakers look to strike a balance between personal privacy and giving police the tools they need to do their job”. If all of this- increases in cell phone tracking, police body cameras and license plate detectors recording and saving data- is all about striking a balance, it seems like someone’s got a thumb tipping the scale.

Vermont to Receive the Imp of Intolerance

National, , , , ,

Responding to the news that Donald Trump plans a visit to Vermont, our own Senator Bernie Sanders released this rather restrained statement:

“I welcome Mr. Trump to Vermont. I hope his presence here will help him better understand Vermont values — social and economic justice, tolerance, respect for all people and the environment.”

…To which I can only say, “Don’t hold your breath, Senator!”

For the Vermont Democratic party this is a sit-back-and-enjoy-the-show moment because, whatever happens, the Vermont GOP is bound to be dis-served by a visit from the celebrated Imp of Intolerance.

Usually, a big name on the national ticket coming to town means donations and reflected glory flooding statewide candidates of the same party.

That doesn’t promise to be the likely effect of Mr. Trump’s visit.

I almost feel sorry for Randy Brock, who has very recently taken a giant step away from the presumptive GOP national nominee…something that Phil Scott has avoided over the past couple of months, although he did say last September that he couldn’t support Trump.

What might Phil Scott’s reward be for keeping a lid on it?  A photo op with His Nibs?  And how would that play in Putney?

Under the immediate circumstances, I don’t know which has made the wiser decision.