Author Archives: John S. Walters

Unknown's avatar

About John S. Walters

Writer, editor, sometime radio personality, author of "Roads Less Traveled: Visionary New England Lives."

Dr. Dean dips toe into Beltway cesspool

6 Replies

Oh boy, oh boy, it’s a Tweetfight!

In this corner, former Vermont Governor and DNC chair Howard Dean!

In that corner, Ron Fournier, senior political columnist for the National Journal and longtime bete noire of liberal politicos. At the NJ and previously for the Associated Press, Fournier’s coverage has been notably harsh on Democrats and relatively soft on Republicans.

So, of course, a potential Hillary Clinton candidacy puts her firmly in the crosshairs. Fournier’s latest hack job: a gossipy, fact-free piece floating rumors that Hillary’s email practices may have been related to Clinton Foundation fundraising. Specifically, that she might have been using her pull as Secretary of State to induce fat contributions from foreign governments and potentates.

Fournier comes right out and says there is “no evidence of wrongdoing,” but that doesn’t stop him from filling his column with the kinds of leading questions you usually expect from Fox News or Darrell Issa:

Is the foundation clean? Is it corrupt? Or is the truth in the muddy middle, where we so often find the Clintons? … Without those emails, we may never be able to follow the money. Could that be why she hasn’t coughed up the server?

He even makes it clear he has a personal beef with the Clintons and what he calls “their entitlement, outsized victimization, and an aggravating belief in the ends justifying the means.”

Hmm, yeah, that sounds like a journalist to me.

Fournier, being a multi-platform content provider, dutifully Tweeted about his “scoop.”

This is where the good Dr. Dean stepped into Fournier’s cesspool.

Fournier’s self-satisfied response:

Now there’s Washington schmoozing at its grossest: “I’m right, you’re wrong, but hey, let’s do lunch! Have your people call my people.” Dean tries to pin him down:

Fournier, being a veteran of the Beltway game, is having none of it.

Good God, what a slimeball. If Fournier’s column is notable for anything, it’s for the complete lack of facts. It’s nothing but rumor and characters assassination. And he has the gall to top it off with “Be well.” I’m feeling the need for a shower. Dean’s redirect:

To which Fournier can offer nothing but a hasty exit:

“Gotta run,” indeed. Can’t stay and let himself be pinned down, can he? Dean closes with a dollop of sarcasm.

The two protagonists return to their respective corners.

Props to Dean for a noble effort. But Fournier has been a slime merchant for far too long to waste much time on a mere former governor, Presidential front-runner and major-party chair. Ron Fournier has bigger fish to fry, and a whole lot of grease to fry ’em in.

Why it’s important to proofread your press releases

Leave a reply

Vermont has lost one of its former governors. F. Ray Keyser, Jr., died yesterday. He served one term in the early 60s, and is most remembered for the end of his tenure. He lost his bid for re-election to Phil Hoff, the first Democrat to win the governorship since the founding of the Republican Party.

Standard operating procedure for politicians, when one of their own shuffles off this mortal coil, is the issuance of a press release. Congressman Peter Welch dutifully did so. Unfortunately, this being a weekend, the staff failed to give their full attention to the formality.

The result?

Welch.Keyser

Ehh, Keyser, Kesyer, whatevs.

 

Shap the Triangulator

2 Replies

“It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.” 

                      –Lyndon B. Johnson

ICYMI, House Speaker Shap Smith has done something a bit unusual on two key issues, education funding and economic development. He solicited public input, and created special brainstorming committees to evaluate ideas.

Let's… Make… a Deal!

Let’s… Make… a Deal!

The existence of these committees is interesting enough; it smacks of a legislative leader angling for the bigger stage. This process amounts to an informal, back-office policy shop, and gives Smith  a very central role in crafting policy instead of, say, waiting for Governor Shumlin to initiate. His work with the committees also can’t help but endear him to some pretty prominent people.

More evidence of ambition can be found the makeup of the two groups. The education panel included ten current and former lawmakers: Democrats, Republicans, and independents. Good for building nonpartisan street cred.

The economy group included many of The Great And Good of Vermont’s business community, including Betsy Bishop of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, Tom Torti of the Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce, and (Lord help us) Bruce Lisman of Campaign for Vermont Prosperity. The chair, Paul Ralston, is a former Democratic legislator who alienated many of his caucus mates during his single term*, and ended by partnering with Republican Rep. Heidi Scheuermann in Vision to Action Vermont, a PAC that’s just about as nonpartisan as Campaign for Vermont.

*I’ve heard him described as a junior-grade version of Peter Galbraith for his self-centered ways. Love his coffee, though.  

The group also includes a healthy share of relatively progressive businessfolks, like Andrew Savage of All Earth Renewables, Andrea Cohen of Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, and Cairn Cross of FreshTracks Capital. But there was no one from the labor movement, and no one from any progressive or environmental organization.

It smacks of triangulation, the favored strategery of upwardly mobile Democrats and the bane of liberals. And it smacks of building networks of support among the deep-pocketed donor class. Which tends to lead to centrist policymaking, not to mention one of Gov. Shumlin’s favorite pastime, kicking the hippies.

I’m not ready to call Smith a sellout. A recent report on VPR lists some ideas emerging from the job-creation committee, and they actually sound pretty good: identifying ways to unlock capital for small businesses and startups, matching technical-school curricula with the needs of Vermont tech companies. Also, Cross is quoted as saying that Vermont’s business climate has more to do with quality of life and a clean environment than the old bromides of tax breaks and deregulation.

That sounds like a relatively progressive approach to economic development. And truth be told, there’s a need for a strategy that cuts through the standard liberal/business debate — that encourages job growth without abandoning liberal principles.

For instance, there is probably room for — and please don’t shoot me — some modest reform in the permitting process. The very phrase “permit reform” has been uttered by so many Republicans for so many years, it raises immediate hackles in the liberal community. Can we find a way to ease the process for the kinds of enterprise that create good jobs and contribute to our economic vitality without simply greasing the skids for strip malls and subdivisions? We probably can, and maybe — just maybe — Smith is trying to break the usual pattern and find a third way.

I’m willing to wait and see what emerges before passing judgment on the process and on Smith’s motivations.

As for the political question: Is Shap Smith running for governor? I don’t know. And at this point, he probably doesn’t either. But he’s certainly developing relationships and laying the groundwork for a future run, should he decide to do so.

Gannett honors cashiered Free Press writer

3 Replies

Ohh, this is sad, even by Burlington Free Press standards.

Last Friday, the Gannett newspaper chain announced its “Best of Gannett” awards for the company’s best journalism in 2014. Among the big winners were the Arizona Republic, the Des Moines Register, the Palm Beach (CA) Desert Sun, and the Staunton (VA) News Leader.

This being a media awards thing, there were dozens upon dozens of winners. (Journalism awards are kinda like participation ribbons. I speak as a past winner of dozens myself.)

So where, oh where, can the Freeploid be?

Scroll down. Keep scrolling. More. More. Keep going. Further. Go on.

Okay, there. The Free Press’ one and only prize is a Third Place award in the category of “Narrative Writing/Voice,” which aims to honor “powerful and tightly written news and feature stories… and any examples of evocative writing regardless of platform.”

And your winner? Oh, this is embarrassing.

Tim Johnson. 

Yes, the Tim Johnson who was abruptly fired last fall after 16 years on the job.

Gee, somehow the Free Press never bothered to report this great victory. And it’s usually so quick to brag about any honor it wins, no matter how trumped-up.

Here’s a final indignity: The awards come with cash prizes. Unfortunately for Tim, the money goes not to the writers, but to their employers. Or, in Tim’s case, ex-employer.

That’s Gannett for ya, giving the prizes to itself and screwing the talent. *Correction; see second Postscript below.

Postscript. I’ve heard through the grapevine that Johnson learned of his award through this blog. Nobody at the Free Press or Gannett bothered to inform him. That’s not just sad; it’s shameful. Even if the Free Press was going to keep the check, they could have at least given him a certificate or something. 

Post-postscript. A commenter notes that I made a mistake in reading the Gannett press release. The newspapers do pocket the cash for the Public Service awards, but the writing and reporting prizes are supposed to go to the individual staff. Presumably the Free Press will be scheduling a nice presentation ceremony for Johnson. Hahahaha.

Who watches the watcher?

1 Reply

Under our system of government, the legislature enacts laws and the executive implements and enforces them. But what happens when a law targets the state itself, and the state fails to obey the law?

Don't mess with the Hoffer.

Don’t mess with the Hoffer.

This existential question arises from a new report from Auditor Doug Hoffer (who has an appropriately awesome, take-no-prisoners signature) brings us an example of a self-inflicted U.M. It involves Act 40, a bill that became law during Peter Shumlin’s first year in office. Act 40 was a nobly-intentioned piece of legislation that required each state entity to cut its energy consumption by five percent per year.

 

Great, no? The state leads the way on energy efficiency, providing an example for us all. Except that, according to Hoffer, Act 40 is nothing but an empty shell, its efficacy unknown and unknowable.

A few key findings:

— The state ” had limited information regarding whether, and the extent to which, its focus on reducing energy consumption resulted in reductions consistent with its goals.”

— The state government’s energy plan “failed to establish a systematic mechanism to evaluate progress toward reducing energy consumption.”

— Not all state agencies prepared energy-reduction plans required by the law.

— Key terms in the law were left unclear. For instance, Act 40 called for “right-sizing” state vehicles, but “right-sizing was not defined” and no criteria were established.

— Energy use in leased space was not included in evaluating Act 40 performance. In 2012, leased space accounted for 20% of building space managed by the Department of Buildings and General Services. There’s a big loophole.

And the kicker:

— “State government energy consumption has not been reported since 2011, and the results reported prior to 2011… contained data and formula errors and had methodological flaws…”

Put it all together, and we seem to have a clear picture of administrative failure that undermined a very good piece of legislation.

Buildings and General Services Commissioner Michael Obuchowski acknowledged many failings in his formal response to Hoffer’s audit. He pleaded, surprise surprise, poverty. He says that the state needs an energy management division to implement Act 40 but there’s no money for such an entity. In the meantime, he says, “BGS will continue to provide these services to the best of its ability.”

Judging by past performance, there seems to be an ability gap.

Obuchowski and Hoffer both say that some improvements are already underway. But why did it take an audit to make the state’s energy management system even attempt to follow the law?

If this was a private entity flouting the law, we’d be going after them guns a-blazing. But how do we hold the state to account for ignoring its own statute?

(And, once again, what does this say about the administrative competence of the Shumlin administration?)

A self-selected “champion”?

Leave a reply

Now that we’ve caught up with Campaign for Vermont’s effort to co-opt our town clerks, let’s check in with CFV founder and funder Bruce Lisman.

Well, Bruce is doing pretty much what he’s been doing — just on his own platform, the humbly named “brucelismanvt.com.” Same faux-centrist pro-business rhetoric, same slightly constipated looking smile on his face.

Bruce is blogging now, but you can’t just click over and read it; you have to “subscribe.” I’d rather die.

It’s not a paid subscription; all you have to do is provide Lisman with your contact information. Yep, he’s building a mailing list.

Running for Governor? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Bruce Lisman will never be Governor of Vermont. He’s not terribly well known, in spite of his travels around the state; he’s a lousy campaigner and public speaker; and most importantly of all, Phil Scott stands squarely in his path. Scott is a much better advocate of pretty much the same policy ideas. He’s far better known, he’s a more effective speaker and a proven fundraiser, and he has a major party structure behind him.

Lisman is also Tweeting, occasionally. His latest 120-character opus:

Oh, so we need a “champion,” do we? Got someone in mind, Bruce?

Advocacy Group Seeks Public-Sector Proxies

4 Replies

Campaign for Vermont, the Bruce Lisman-funded public policy organization, recently sent out an interesting email blast.

The missive, dated February 25, was sent to all of Vermont’s town clerks; it asked the clerks to use their public standing on behalf of CFV:

As a staple within your community, you have the unique vantage point to facilitate the exchange of ideas. Additionally, because of your role in local government, you have the chance to experience and therefore critique many policies. To this end, Campaign for Vermont (CFV) would like to share the attached economic position paper and our newly released economic indicators report.

Ah, the generosity of these folks, freely sharing the fruits of their labor. And what do they want the clerks to do in return?

…we are excited to have you read our ideas, use your community connections to evaluate the effectiveness and legitimacy of our proposals, as well as provide feedback to Campaign for Vermont. We encourage you to share this document with business leaders in your community.

Oh. Hm. So CFV wants our publicly-elected, publicly-paid clerks to become unpaid shills for its flackery.

I doubt that CFV will get much out of this; most clerks, I imagine, simply trashed the message. As they should; this smells a bit funny to me, asking an officeholder who is supposed to be an objective arbiter of elections to become an advocate. Even if the request comes from a “nonpartisan” group.

I asked Secretary of State Jim Condos for his reaction. “It’s not illegal but it may put a clerk in a difficult position,” he wrote in an email. “It’s not something we would recommend that the clerk do, in the interest of maintaining an appearance of impartiality.” He further suggested that such a request “would be better for selectboard and city council members.”

For all I know, CFV did send the same request to those officials. I happened to receive the clerks’ email.

So, not illegal but unwise. And, it seems to me, just a little bit desperate. CFV is trying to establish broad visibility without Lisman and ease its dependence on the mighty Lisman wallet. Its executive director Cyrus Patten has been busily roaming the halls of the Statehouse, which is good, but it looks like he may have taken a step too far in trying to connect with the general public.

Single-payer price tag: the dollars matter less than what they bought

2 Replies

Another fine “Fair Game” column by Seven Days politimeister Paul Heintz, most of which is an attempt to put a price tag on Gov. Shumlin’s failed pursuit of single-payer health care.

The takeaway number: $2 million. But that comes with some major cutouts; if you changed the ground rules, you could come up with a much higher number.

Heintz sought that number for ten weeks before the administration finally came up with it. And after all that time, all they did was add up two numbers: $597,000 to ten consultants, and $1.33 million spent on the governor’s Office of Health Care Reform.

However… the consultants and the OHCR weren’t the only people who put in time on single-payer. Work was also done by staffers in “10 offices, departments and agencies.” There was lobbying and flackery on behalf of single-payer. And many millions were spent on the Green Mountain Care Board and other entities that might not have existed, or been nearly so expensive, if not for their work on single-payer.

So, $2 million. Or a lot more, your choice.

The big question, though: was that too much? And the answer is, it depends.

If it was spent well and wisely, then $2 million or even $20 million would be a perfectly reasonable investment in research on a huge policy initiative. If it was spent poorly, then $2 million or $2,000 would be a waste.

So it depends. If you oppose single-payer, it’s an outrage. If you favor single-payer and believe the governor did his best, it’s reasonable.

And if, like me and many other single-payer supporters, you have your doubts regarding the administration’s performance, then that $2 million figure will make you a bit more queasy about the whole enterprise.

Urp.

Burlington Mayoral Race Cools Down

Leave a reply

(In honor of the hackneyed campaign headline, “_________ Race Heats Up,” the favorite of unimaginative headline writers desperate to gin up a little reader interest. And yes, the Free Press deployed it during the campaign for mayor of Burlington, which was never, ever, ever close.)

Well, if there’s any widespread revolt over Miro Weinberger’s alleged secret plot to pave the open spaces and fill the city with skyscrapers, it sure didn’t show itself on Town Meeting Day. Weinberger won a second term with 68% of the vote; the two challengers beating the anti-development drum managed less than 30%.

So, Monday Morning Quarterback, what does it mean? Glad you asked.

The accusations against Weinberger didn’t stick because (1) anti-development sentiment in Burlington represents a loud minority; most residents, I think, would like to see reasonable growth, (2) Weinberger consistently presented a reasonable approach and hasn’t given the voters any big reason to mistrust him, and (3) by all appearances, he ran the city competently in his first term. And after the Bob Kiss Experience, voters were happy to see simple managerial competence.

Corollary to point 3: the Burlington Progs are still suffering from the aftereffects of the Kiss Experience. Especially when their candidate is a hippie-lookin’ holdover from past Progressive administrations. It’ll take them a while longer to win back the trust of Queen City voters.

The Progs’ candidate, Steve Goodkind, refused to admit that Weinberger might actually be popular, heaven forfend; he credited the mayor’s “great machine.” By which he presumably meant Weinberger’s massive fundraising advantage.

That certainly didn’t hurt, but if we’ve learned anything from recent gubernatorial elections, it’s that Money Can’t Buy You Love. If there was widespread disaffection with Weinberger, the voters would have scrambled to the nearest available Scott Milne, no matter how underfunded or dubiously qualified. It’s tough to argue with 68% support.

On the other hand, there’s the City Council vote, which saw the Democrats lose ground and the Progs gain, probably leading to a Progressive council president. Was this a mixed verdict by the voters?

Yes and no, but mostly unclear. If the voters were convinced by the anti-development argument, it seems to me that they would have concentrated their ire on Weinberger. Also, and more saliently, the council results are tough to interpret because of the massive overhaul of ward boundaries. You’d really have to do a deep analysis of the vote, comparing it to previous elections.

One example: a new ward was created in student-dominated precincts. Students, as they are wont to do, stayed away in droves. (Overall turnout was 25%, but in Ward 8 it was under 10%.) As a result, Prog-leaning independent Adam Roof beat the Democrat despite getting less than 200 votes. That total would have earned him a brutal defeat in any other ward.

So the Progs had an unearned edge in Ward 8. I have no idea if that’s true across the city because I’m not a deep-numbers guy. I’ll leave that task to the experts.

The result does leave Weinberger facing a divided City Council with the Progressives likely enjoying a narrow organizational majority. He’ll have to work with the Progs and independents, which could mean a slightly more measured approach to development.

Of course, I’m not convinced that Weinberger ever had a secret plan to pave Burlington. By all indications, he wants to pursue a measured approach anyway. For the crowd that thinks “developer” is a dirty word, his intentions will always be suspect. But that crowd suffered a pretty thorough defeat in Burlington yesterday.

Super Dave stubs his toe

Leave a reply

Pity poor VTGOP chair David Sunderland. He’s constantly on the lookout for ways to score a cheap political point at the expense of the Democrats. It’s a dirty job, but somebody’s got to do it. I guess.

So I guess it’s only to be expected that, once in a while, Sunderland will get it completely wrong. Exhibit A:

The link is to a brief story reporting Shumlin’s opposition to the idea of closing the Vermont Veterans’ Home.

That proposal was on a lengthy list of cuts totaling $29 million, produced last week by the Shumlin administration and the legislature’s Joint Fiscal Office. It was meant as an all-inclusive laundry list, with no endorsements implied or expressed. It includes obvious nonstarters like cutting the House from 150 members to 120, eliminating the Vermont Commission on Women*, and reductions to health care premium subsidies.

*I certainly hope that’s a nonstarter. And I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts that it was a man who suggested it.

The list was presented as a starting point for discussion — and as evidence of how hard it is to cut the budget.

I see three possible explanations for Sunderland’s wrongheaded Tweet:

— He thought he saw an opening and pounced without thinking it through.

— He actually doesn’t know what the list is, even though it was one of the top political stories of the past week.

— He knows damn well that Shumlin hasn’t endorsed the list, but isn’t about to let the facts get in his way.

I’m willing to assume the first. The second would betray a surprising level of ignorance; the third is out of bounds, even by the loose relationship to the truth maintained by your average major party chair.