Tag Archives: Martine Larocque Gulick

‘Tis the Season for Strained Racing Analogies

1 Reply

Looks like a real contest is developing in the Chittenden Central state Senate district, where three seats will be up for grabs in 2026. The three sitting solons, who seem likely to run for re-election, may find as many as four other names on the Democratic primary ballot next August.

In other words, Donkey Race!

Chittenden-Central is, geographically speaking, the smallest Senate district by a longshot. On a map it resembles Nepal after encontering an old-fashioned laundry mangle. It includes much of northern and central Burlington, the city of Winooski, a bit of Colchester, the city of Essex Junction, and part of the town of Essex. Politically speaking, it may be the most liberal Senate district in the state. The incumbents are Senate President Pro Tem Phil Baruth, listed on the ballot as a D/P, Democratic Sen. Martine Laroque Gulick, and P/D Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky.

So who’s running? Glad you asked.

Continue reading →

News You Should View: What Podcasts Are For

4 Replies

The gaggle of 50s throwbacks pictured above, tightly bunched around a single print newspaper, would have no idea what a podcast is. But in these days, when The Burlington Free Press‘ readership is not much more than the… 14?… avid readers in this image, podcasts have become a vital part of the Vermont media scene. We have two worthy entries atop this week’s roundup, followed by some worthwhile stories from Vermont’s doughty local outlets.

Liberal lawmakers speak out against H.454. The latest edition of “There’s No ‘A’ in Creemee*,” the newish podcast from former state senator Andy Julow and Joanna Grossman, chair of the Chittenden County Democrats, is an insightful interview with two Democratic lawmakers who voted “No” on H.454, the education reform bill that split the Dem caucuses and won the support of almost every Republican. Rep. Erin Brady and Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick, both professional educators, barred no holds as they spoke of their disappointment bordering on betrayal. “A gut punch” is how Brady described the maneuverings on the House floor that left many lawmakers feeling hornswoggled by leadership. Gulick’s verdict: “Some serious harm has been done with the public education community.” My only disappointment is that the hosts didn’t take my suggestion that they ask Gulick why she got swindled out of chairing the Senate Education Committee. So maybe a few holds were barred, after all.

*The podcast issues new episodes on Mondays, so there’s likely a new edition available by the time you read this. But I close the books on this feature every Sunday night. Gotta draw the line somewhere.

Four perspectives on civil unions. David Goodman of The Vermont Conversation devoted the latest episode of his weekly pod to the 25th anniversary of the passage of civil unions in Vermont. He had previously interviewed former state representative Bill Lippert, who played a key role in getting civil unions through the Legislature. This time, Goodman wrapped three interviews into a single program. Most memorable were Stacy Jolles and Nina Beck, two of the six plaintiffs in the court case that prompted the enactment of civil unions. Goodman asked them if they feared for their safety during the overheated Statehouse debate, and Jolles replied “Okay, well, we’re both martial artists,” and laughed.

Other moments weren’t so funny. Both women said that when civil unions became law they felt defeated, because it was a halfway measure that didn’t provide anywhere near the full legal protections of marriage. They didn’t celebrate until full marriage equality became state law nine years later. And Jolles believes her rights are unlikely to survive the Trump presidency. “I think it’s going to get very bad, and I’m going to be active until the very last minute I can be active,” she said. “We’re going to have to fight harder than we have before.”

Continue reading →

“This Broke the Democratic Caucuses”

5 Replies

First, the obligatory note about Famous Quotes. They’re all a lie, apparently.

This one is either an “Afghan Proverb” or it was said by Benjamin Hooks or John C. Maxwell or James M. Kouzas, take your choice. I’m just surprised it hasn’t been attributed to the Grand Champions of “I Didn’t Actually Say That”: Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, and Yogi Berra.

Whoever said it, it applies here. The Democratic leadership of the House and Senate played a very dangerous game when they jammed through H.454, the “education reform” bill that’s all about squeezing the public education system and protecting the interests of Vermont’s big private schools. Yeah, they won. They got their grand bargain with Gov. Phil Scott. But at what cost?

It’s almost unheard of for a major bill to pass a legislative body with most of the majority lawmakers voting “No,” and that’s exactly what happened here. Virtually all the Republicans voted in lockstep with the governor, while most Democrats in the House and Senate spurned their leadership and rvoted against H.454.

There’s a reason such a maneuver is almost unheard of, and it’s expressed in my headline. “This broke the Democratic caucuses” is what one majority lawmaker told me, and added that House and Senate leaders “are isolated and insulated from their caucuses.”

Need I say that this is an unhealthy situation, and that it bodes ill for the 2026 session and the November elections? Need I add that leadership needs to put in some serious time mending fences? They should, but based on past performance I have little confidence that they will.

Continue reading →

Senate Leadership Cooked the Books on Education Reform

5 Replies

You know what’s a really great indicator of success? When a legislative body takes on a vital issue, and comes up with a “solution” that everybody seems to hate.

Well, that’s exactly what we’ve got with the state Senate’s education reform plan, which was approved last week by the Senate Finance Committee. Better still: the people who hate it the most are in the Democratic majority. Seriously, the only Senators who have anything good to say about this thing are Republicans.

And their words constitute the very definition of “damning with faint praise.”

Take, for instance, Sen. Randy Brock: “everybody… is coming away somewhat or entirely disappointed,” but “doing nothing is even a worse option.” Senate Majority Leader Scott Beck favors the bill, but warns that it could bring substantial tax increases to economically disadvantaged communities. Great!

Democrats, meanwhile, could barely conceal their contempt. “This bill will be devastating to our education system,” said Sen. Ruth Hardy. “I’m extremely uncomfortable with all of this,” said Sen. Martine Laroque Gulick, about whom more later. Senate Finance Committee chair Sen. Anne Cummings, who held her nose and voted yes, “can’t remember ever feeling as bad about a vote as I do on this one,” and she’s been in office since 1997, so she’s taken a few votes. Sen. Thomas Chittenden, who voted for the bill in committee, said he might well vote “No” on the Senate floor.

To judge by the published comments, it’s quite possible that when this bill gets to the full Senate, it will get more votes among minority Republicans than majority Democrats. Which is a remarkable development for one of the most significant bills of the entire session.

Continue reading →

The Curious Case of the Senate Education Committee

3 Replies

I haven’t written about the Legislature’s newly reconstituted committees because there’s been a lot of other stuff going on. But there’s one committee that really caught my eye, and that’s the Senate Education Committee. Since education funding and structure are likely to be the dominant (and most contentious) issues in the new session, this panel will play a key role.

The Senate’s Committee on Committees chose to split the panel right down the middle — three Democrats and three Republicans. It’s pretty unusual. for the majority party to voluntarily relinquish its customary right to occupy most of the seats. Senate President Pro Tem Phil Baruth said the intention was to create a committee that would “put out bipartisan bills.”

Sounds noble. It also puts the Republicans on the spot. They can’t just sit back and vote “No” on Democratic proposals. If they don’t come to the table and negotiate, then nothing will get done.

Still, the Democrats are ceding power when they didn’t have to. Usually, a policy committee would craft bills favoring the majority’s agenda and then see the bills get watered down as they meander through the legislative process. In this case, the compromising will begin immediately. But that’s not what’s bothering me the most about the education panel.

Continue reading →

Chittenden Senate: Brother, Can I Spare a Dime?

1 Reply

One thing stands out when you look over the campaign finance filings for the three state Senate districts in Chittenden County: There are lots of candidates, and most of ’em aren’t raising much money anywhere outside of their own pockets. Seems like a potential equity issue; if you can afford a couple thousand bucks or more, or a LOT more, you don’t have to worry so much about fundraising from other people.

Maybe this is a byproduct of splitting up the formerly unified Chittenden district: No longer can candidates raise money from anywhere in the county. Now they have smaller fields to harvest. Likely a bigger factor: There are a lot of contested statewide races consuming a lot of Democratic money, perhaps away from legislative races.)

The king of the self-funders is Erhard Mahnke, affordable housing advocate and longtime Bernie Sanders associate. He dumped a cool $10,000 into his own campaign, and has only raised $666 from anyone else. That gives him a financial lead in the Chittenden Central district, because he hasn’t spent much so far.

Other notable self-funders include Brian Shelden and Irene Wrenner, Democratic candidates in Chittenden North. They’ve given nearly $7,500 to their own campaigns and raised less than that from other people. Meanwhile, the sole Republican, state Rep. Leland Morgan, has barely tried. He’s raised less than $700. Perhaps he’s looked at district demographics and decided he doesn’t really need to try. Or he’s waiting until after the primary.

Back in Chittenden Central, the top three fundraisers have done well from their own pockets and from others, too.

Continue reading →