Tag Archives: Jane Kitchel

Five. And Counting.

Since Thanksgiving Eve, at least five Vermonters have died after being turned away from the state’s General Assistance Emergency Housing program. Three deaths have been publicly reported, but at least two more can be added to the list. We’re up to five. And counting.

Or shall I say, in the words of End Homelessness Vermont’s Brenda Siegel, five “that we know about.” There is good reason to take her word for it; EHV has done a far better job than the state at keeping in touch with unsheltered people, assessing their needs, and trying to keep them safe and warm. And yes, Siegel is an advocate, but she has no need to exaggerate or embellish; the crisis is quite bad enough as it is.

There may have been more deaths that we don’t yet know about. There may be more by the time you read this post. This is an emergency. If the Scott administration was operating with less pride and more compassion, there would be an immediate summit meeting of state officials, key legislators, shelter providers, and housing advocates to find ways to help more people with available resources. The governor is right about one thing: The motel voucher program is a stopgap. It’s too expensive and doesn’t address any issues beyond roofs over heads.

There are options. There are ways to handle the situation — not perfectly, but better than we are now. The Scott administration has failed to explore other ideas. Instead, its policy has been to use whatever money is on hand to prop up the voucher program while making no provision at all for a better, longer-term solution. “It doesn’t have to be the motel program,” Siegel said. “There are other options. But we cannot keep unsheltering people.”

End of sermon. Now, more grim details.

Continue reading

How Many More Menards? (SEE ALSO ENSUING POST)

Note: This post is deeply flawed and hurtful in ways I did not intend. In making a case against state policy, I used the Menards as symbols — or props, if you prefer — in ways that dishonor their memory and affect their family and friends. I apologize. I’m keeping this post as is, but I have written a follow-up with an apology and further reflections.

Lucas and Tammy Menard may have been the first to die because the State of Vermont didn’t care, but they will not be the last. There are roughly 1,500 people, all of whom were officially classed as “vulnerable” due to age, disability, or other factors, who have been unsheltered by state policy since mid-September. Our leaders put all of them in the most horribly uncertain of circumstances because we could not muster the political will or managerial smarts to provide for these people.

Instead, we were satisfied with a policy that amounts to “culling the herd,” weeding out those too compromised to survive the onset of winter living in a goddamn tent. The Menards’ deaths could be seen as a policy success in that regard. The long, long list of the unsheltered has just been reduced by two, so hey, congratulations?

It’s a situation that would seem to warrant charges of negligent manslaughter against certain politicians and bureaucrats — except for that pesky immunity standard they enjoy for official acts. And if you think accusing Our Betters of willfully committing two felonies is a bridge too far, well, let us turn to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of “manslaughter” as

…resulting from the failure to perform a legal duty expressly required to safeguard human life, from the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or from the commission of a lawful act involving a risk of injury or death that is done in an unlawful, reckless, or grossly negligent manner.

Continue reading

The New State Senate Will Be… Something

Last May, I wrote a piece entitled “What Will the State Senate Be in 2025?” The idea was that for the second straight election cycle, the stodgy ol’ Senate was going to see an unusual quantity of churn:

This, in a body that values age and seniority above all else, and normally consigns junior members to purely decorative status. It’s gonna be interesting.

Well, the results of this month’s election will bring even more change to the Senate. It’s kind of staggering when you put it all together. By my count, 18 of the 30 senators will be freshmen or sophomores come January. That’s an amazing number. There were 10 newbies in 2023, and nine more will be new senators in 2025. (One 2023 newcomer, Irene Wrenner, lost her bid for a second term.)

The class of 2025: Democrats Seth Bongartz, Joe Major, and Robert Plunkett; and Republicans Scott Beck, Patrick Brennan, Samuel Douglass, Larry Hart Sr., Steven Heffernan, and Chris Mattos. Class of 2023: Martine Gulick, Wendy Harrison, Nader Hashim, Robert Norris, Tanya Vyhovsky, Anne Watson, David Weeks, Becca White, and Terry Williams.

What’s more, in a body known for very long tenures, only four senators will have served continuously since 2015 (Phil Baruth, Ann Cummings, Ginny Lyons, Richard Westman). Historically, you’d need to serve at least that long before the John Bloomers of the world* would consider you to be a Real Senator.

*Kidding. There is only one John Bloomer per planet.

Continue reading

The Senate Reset of 2024

The campaign for Vermont Senate is the main battleground in our rather underwhelming 2024 election season, thanks to a number of open and potentially competitive seats. Plus there’s little on the statewide ballot to divert attention, and the Dem/Prog supermajority in the House appears to be safe. That leaves the Senate, where key vacancies have attracted strong candidates and very generous donor support.

I’ve written previously about the highly unusual, possibly unprecedented, amount of turnover in the Senate between the 2022 cycle and this year’s: 2022 saw the departures of ten sitting Senators, fully one-third of the entire chamber. Six more incumbents will be absent next January through retirement (Brian Campion, Jane Kitchel, Dick McCormack, Bobby Starr) or death (Dick Mazza, Dick Sears).

Furthermore, five of the six vacancies are in districts that haven’t been seriously contested in years because of long-established, nigh-unbeatable incumbents. That’s especially impactful because sitting senators are virtually bulletproof. The last time an incumbent senator lost a bid for re-election was in 2016, when Bill Doyle and Norm McAllister were defeated. Doyle was 90 years old and had developed a widely-known habit of falling asleep during hearings; McAllister faced a bunch of criminal charges.

That’s about what it takes for an incumbent senator to lose. Which means this year’s winners are likely to be in office for a long time to come. Those are high stakes.

Continue reading

A Modest Suggestion for Our Newsgatherers — Oh, Never Mind, They’ll Just Ignore Me Anyway

Really good piece of work by the cross-media combo of Carly Berlin and Lola Duffort on the humanitarian toll about to occur thanks to cuts in the state’s emergency housing program. They went out and did the work, speaking with numerous recipients of state-paid motel vouchers who are about to lose their places. The stories are heartbreaking, and dismaying for those of us who’d like to believe we’re capable of better than the planned unsheltering of up to 900 households, all of which fall into one or more category of “vulnerable.”

By the customary multiplier, that’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,500 individuals, including people with disabilities, children, and those fleeing domestic abuse. And where will they go? That’s “unclear,” per Duffort and Berlin.

Area shelters were full, affordable housing waitlists were a mile long, and towns and cities across the state have grown more aggressive about evicting campers from public land.

Full credit for a job well done. And now I have a suggestion for a great follow-up.

Continue reading

The Humanitarian Crisis Is Almost Upon Us, and Official Vermont Is Doing Nothing About It

Nothing has changed since my August 18 post about pending reductions in the state’s emergency housing program. Well, that’s not exactly true. Nothing has changed in terms of the official response, but there are all kinds of ways in which the situation is looking even worse than previously thought. That light you see at the end of the tunnel? That’s the headlight of the train headed right for us. Today is September 6; hundreds of people in state-paid motel rooms will see their eligibility expire beginning in mid-September, at the same time a cap on the number of motel rooms will take effect.

That cap is 1,100. At last count, there were more than 1,400 households in the program — and a waiting list of hundreds more. Om case you’d forgotten, eligibility had already been restricted to the truly vulnerable: People with young children or disabilities, people who had suffered a natural disaster or are fleeing domestic abuse.

Remember when Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Jane Kitchel sought reassurance that no one in a wheelchair would be put out on the street if the voucher program were cut back, and Department of Children and Families Commissioner Chris Winters replied “Hopefully not”? Well, turns out we definitely will be kicking out people in wheelchairs, and others with severe disabilities, and generally, people with nowhere else to turn.

In Friday’s mail was the latest edition of The Montpelier Bridge and its two front-page articles: “City Moves to Clear Country Club Road Encampment” and “Motel Program Restrictions Mean 100 Local People To Be Ousted.” Yeah, welcome to the greatest nation on Earth.

Continue reading

And So We Trudge Predictably Toward Our Next Humanitarian Crisis

Our political leaders — of all parties — are failing us again. And it was all perfectly foreseeable. In fact, it was quite literally baked into the most recent iteration of Vermont’s grossly inadequate policy on sheltering the homeless.

The damning details are available in “Vermont’s New Motel Room Limits Are Primed to Push Out Hundreds of Households This Fall,” posted Friday by shared VTDigger/Vermont Public reporter Carly Berlin (because homelessness isn’t a big enough issue to warrant separate reportage, apparenty). It’s not a pretty picture, not at all.

The headline should come as no surprise whatsoever, since the “new motel room limits” were designed “to push out hundreds of vulnerable households this fall.” The program is rolling out precisely as intended. Except, as Berlin’s piece makes clear, the looming reality is somehow even worse than that.

Continue reading

So the VTGOP’s Big Plan Is… Try to Take Jane Kitchel’s Senate Seat? Is That It?

Previously we looked at the dire financial straits of Esther Charlestin’s candidacy for governor, where she barely cleared $12,000 in a race that calls for, by Howard Dean’s reckoning, at least 164 times that much money. Now it’s time to look at the Republican side of the ledger, where pretty much everybody can rightly cry poverty.

With one notable exception.

That would be state Rep. Scott Beck, running for the Northeast Kingdom Senate seat currently occupied by retiring Democrat Jane Kitchel. Beck has raised a rather stunning $35,565. (His likely Democratic opponent, Amanda Cochrane, has raised a respectable $7,165 and enjoys Kitchel’s active support.) Beck appears to be the only Republican candidate who has raised more than enough money to run a respectable race. Besides, of course, Gov. Phil Scott, The Exception To Every Republican Rule,

More to the point, Beck and the governor are about the only two Republicans who aren’t complete embarrassments when it comes to fundraising. Which shows you just how desperate the party’s situation is.

The VTGOP ought to be in a position for a nice little comeback in the Legislature, threatening to end the Dem/Prog supermajorities that imperil every single one of Scott’s many, many, many vetoes. And they’re not.

Instead, the wistful eyes of the donor class have largely turned to putative Democrat Stewart Ledbetter’s bid to wrest away a Senate seat from liberal Democrat Martine Gulick or Progressive firebrand Tanya Vyhovsky. Ledbetter has amassed the largest campaign kitty of any Statehouse candidate thanks primarily to Burlington-area business leaders. You know, the very people who would historically be bankrolling Republicans.

Continue reading

Whatever Happened to the Great Phil Scott Recruitment Drive of 2024?

When the leader of your party describes your candidate recruitment effort as “disappointing,” it’s a sign that things have gone off the rails. So said VTGOP Chair Paul Dame to Seven Days’ Kevin McCallum, and then added “It’s one of the smallest recruitment classes that we’ve had in the last 10 years.”

Can confirm. I spent a few hours poring over the Secretary of State’s list of candidates who have filed for major party primaries. There may be a few late adds; the deadline was last Thursday, and as of Monday morning the Elections Office was still checking petitions. But what we’ve got so far, by my count, is a total of 69 Republican candidates for House. Which sounds a little bit respectable considering they’ve only got 37 seats right now.

Except for this: At least 30 of those candidates have no shot at winning. There are a few Republican primaries where someone’s gotta lose, a few repeat candidates who have been uncompetitive in the past, and a lot of Republican candidates in deep-blue districts. In other words, the VTGOP has no better than the longest of longshot chances at eliminating the Democratic/Progressive supermajority in the House. They’d have to run the table in competitive districts and hold all their current seats.

On the Senate side the Republicans have 25 candidates, but I count 14 who are not competitive. The R’s do have a shot at ending the Senate supermajority thanks to some key Democratic departures, but that’s all it is: a shot.

So what happened to Gov. Phil Scott’s “pledge” (McCallum’s word) to recruit moderate Republican candidates? Either it was a failure, or it never happened at all.

Continue reading

What Will the State Senate Be In 2025?

Time for some way-too-early speculation about what kind of state Senate we will have in the new biennium. To date, Sens. Jane Kitchel, Bobby Starr, Dick McCormack and Brian Campion have announced they are not seeking re-election. Sen. Dick Mazza resigned last month for health reasons, which brings us to five senior solons — in terms of lifespan and/or tenure — who won’t be there next January.

Disclaimer: The following post is based entirely on my own observations. There is not a lick of insider information at play. I do NOT have sources in Senate leadership.

By my math, the five retirees have lived a combined 372 years (average “only” 74.4 years, thanks to that 53-year-old whipper-snapper Campion, PULL UP YER PANTS young man) and legislative service totaling 158 years. That’s right, one hundred and fifty-eight, more than 31 years apiece under the Golden Dome. Also, three of the five are committee chairs.

This round of departures follows the seismic 2022 election season, when 10 senators — fully one-third of the chamber — did not return. That means fully half of the 2025 Senate will have, at most, two years of experience. In 2020, four senators stepped away (three by choice; John Rodgers came a cropper thanks to his own inattentiveness to the niceties of candidate filing law), which means that 19 members of the new Senate will have no more than four years of experience.

This, in a body that values age and seniority above all else, and normally consigns junior members to purely decorative status. It’s gonna be interesting.

Continue reading