Elections

State eliminates 150 jobs

July 2, 2008, the Burlington Free Press, by Nancy Remsen

MONTPELIER — The Douglas administration released the list of 150 state jobs that were eliminated as of Tuesday, part of its two-step initiative to shrink state government to a more sustainable size.

As of Tuesday, state government had 8,262 filled positions.

Another 250 jobs are scheduled for elimination by the end of December — all without layoffs. Jobs are considered for elimination as workers retire, transfer or leave state government.

The list of eliminated jobs includes a deputy commissioner in the Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living; a prison superintendent; and 35 positions that were authorized, funded but never filled. Many of the never-filled slots were associated with Catamount Health, the state’s new insurance program for previously uninsured Vermonters.

State officials gave managers targets — the anticipated number of cuts that would come from each agency and department. The Agency of Agriculture and Natural Resources Board received byes on their targets because they had no turnover. The two cuts expected from Agriculture and the one projected for the board were met with cuts from the Agency of Transportation and departments of finance and human resources.

The cuts were intended to save money now and in the future. The 150 just-announced cuts will save $8.9 million in the new fiscal year that began Tuesday. State officials wanted at least half of savings to be state dollars.

Finance Commissioner Jim Reardon said Tuesday, “We achieved all the savings necessary that we booked in the budget.”

The Douglas administration promised when it announced the job-elimination plan last fall that all 400 positions could be cut without affecting services provided to Vermonters. Deputy Secretary of Administration Linda McIntire asserted again Tuesday, “We believe that to be true.”

Legislative leaders remained skeptical, although they hadn’t reviewed the first list.

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Bartlett, D-Lamoille, predicted that after the Legislature’s fiscal experts analyze the 150 cuts, “To say there will be no impact on services will not be accurate.”

“The fundamental issue is not the downsizing of state government,” Bartlett said. “What needs to happen is to be honest about what the impact will be.”

The Vermont State Employees Association concluded the cuts would hurt public services.

“VSEA has reviewed the list and it took very little time for us to find multiple positions that, left unfilled, will negatively impact many Vermonters,” VSEA interim director Michael Casey said.

The union noted that the justification given for eliminating many slots was that the work could be done by other employees.

“There are only so many hours in the day, and VSEA is concerned that the administration, in an effort to reach their magic 150 number, conveniently shuffled job duties to other staff. Because state employees assigned new duties have the right by contract to request a reclassification, VSEA will be advising affected employees to do so.”

McIntire countered that managers used the job-cut mandate to explore more efficient ways to do core missions. “It has been a good exercise,” she said. “Tough economic times just make you more efficient.”

McIntire added, “There is so much we have done with technology and this forced people to embrace it.”

Some positions had been vacant for long periods — more than a year for almost one-third of the openings, McIntire said. Departments had operated so long without those services that managers decided they could eliminate the positions.

For example, the Department of Human Resources had tried to recruit a wellness nurse since February 2007 — without success, McIntire said. Now the slot has been cut.

State managers have received new targets for the second round of cuts — again to be made by attrition.

“It’s going to be tough,” McIntire said. “People choked when they saw their targets.” The Agency of Human Services, for example, is expected to trim 90 more slots. Its first target was 98.

McIntire predicted a high number of retirements this summer and added, “Today, there are 441 vacancies in state government, so there are opportunities out there.”

Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, argued that downsizing state government through attrition is a recipe for disaster. “I think the administration approached the job cuts with the same level of planning as President Bush did in invading Iraq.

“You don’t know who is going to retire. Some of them are in critical positions.”

The Legislature has required the Douglas administration to check in with the Joint Fiscal Committee in the fall — before finalizing the next 250 cuts.

Other budgeting decisions have or will result in layoffs.

The Douglas administration proposed a budget for the Department of Corrections that forced the elimination of nine jobs. Those workers were notified in January when the budget was submitted to the Legislature, Deputy Commissioner Andrew Pallito said.

The prison shuffling now under way — closing the Dale unit in Waterbury, moving all women to St. Albans and turning Windsor into a male work camp – eliminates another 40-45 jobs.

Four people lost jobs in the Department of Commerce as a result of a $500,000 budget cut. The positions are all information technology slots, said David Mace, commerce spokesman.

Those layoffs surprised lawmakers. “We were never told that the result of that would be RIFs,” Bartlett said. RIFs stands for reduction in force. State workers will feel the pinch of other belt-tightening. Travel is restricted. Pay was frozen for a year for employees with annual salaries of $60,000 or more.

The budget directs the Douglas administration to pare $250,000 from spending on nonunion staff and $2.3 million from the budget for temporary and contract workers. This is an election year, so the Douglas job-cut plan has become fodder in the gubernatorial race.

Anthony Pollina, a Progressive seeking to unseat Republican Gov. Jim Douglas, said eliminating 400 positions was the wrong strategy.

[Full Story]

Pollina gleans priorities from public

June 21, 2008, Associated Press, by Lisa Rathke

MONTPELIER, Vt.—Andrea Stander told Progressive gubernatorial candidate Anthony Pollina on Saturday that she moved to Vermont because of how forward thinking it was. But in the last decade the state has fallen behind on environmental policy and missed opportunities in environmental technology, she said.

Pollina said he couldn't agree more.

The candidate wrapped up a series of discussions he's held around the state about how Vermont could be better by reviewing the top priorities that came out of them.

From the 13 meetings emerged a call for enforcement of environmental laws, the clean up of Lake Champlain, investment in small, local businesses, an increase in public transportation, the creation of a local food supply and decreasing the state's dependence on oil.

"We really wanted to do something to make sure we heard from people," he said of the forums.

Pollina said he had hoped to come up with clear policy statements for his campaign but Saturday's meeting turned into an education and question and answer session, with four experts chosen by Pollina speaking on the topics.

Anthony Iarrapino, a staff lawyer with the Conservation Law Foundation, who said he was speaking as an individual on Saturday, said for many years the state has lacked leadership in environmental enforcement. Water quality has suffered as a result, he said.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently criticized the state's efforts to clean up Lake Champlain, saying that after almost six years of work, large amounts of phosphorus fertilizer continues to flow into Lake Champlain from the state's rivers.

Incumbent Republican Gov. Jim Douglas, who kicked off his re-election campaign this week, shot back at the EPA saying its contention was out of touch and scientifically baseless.

Pollina called Douglas' response arrogant and nonproductive, while Irrapino said better enforcement would reduce pollution in the lake.

In terms of jobs and the economy, Doug Hoffer, an independent policy analyst in Burlington, said the state should help existing local businesses, instead of trying to draw companies from out of state, and create more affordable housing, quality day cares and help farmers to diversify.

Organic dairy farmer Rep. Dexter Randall, P-Troy, said the state needs to create its own food supply with facilities to process milk, meat and produce and store it.

"I think we can trust our local food supply much better," than food from Mexico, he said.

Besides Douglas, Pollina faces Democrat Gaye Symington and independents Sam Young of Glover and Anthony O'Connor of Derby who are also in the gubernatorial race.

[Source]

Up is Down

The Free Press yesterday reported on Douglas' kick-off for his bid for two more years.  The article includes this quote:
His campaign theme will be that he is a “voice for change for the people of our state who are struggling during these difficult economic times.”
Douglas seems to be doing with "change" what he has done with "affordability":  co-opting a term that could not be farther from describing his administration or his six years at the helm. What change have we enjoyed under six years of Douglas?  Under four years of Symington as Speaker?  Can you afford more of that type of change? Are you better off than you were six years ago?  Than you were four years ago?

State offers food, fuel guidance

June 13, 2008, the Burlington Free Press, by Terri Hallenbeck

RANDOLPH CENTER -- Scott Johnstone, who will soon become the head of Efficiency Vermont, explained it like this:

His vintage 1984 washer and dryer were still technically working, but he and his wife did the math and discovered that by buying new, energy-efficient replacements, they'd earn a payback on the investment in two or three years.

Vermonters can expect help in making such decisions about energy efficiency, coordinating commutes and finding available services to help them handle mounting fuel and food prices, Gov. Jim Douglas said Thursday in outlining a series of plans.

Douglas, speaking at Vermont Technical Center, promised to simplify access to programs and added a couple new ones, including no- and low-interest loans for weatherization.

"Great things are happening, but not all Vermonters know about them," Douglas said. "We need to marshal all our resources."

Several pieces of the package are programs that were in the works, including additional park-and-ride spaces and increasing the number of farmers markets that accept food stamps.

Among the new pieces of his package was $9 million over the next four years for a new State Weatherization Revolving Loan Fund that would provide no- and low-interest loans to moderate-income Vermonters to make their homes more energy efficient.

The money to pay for next year's $2 million portion of the program will come from next year's budget adjustment or from shifting existing resources, said Neale Lunderville, transportation secretary, who will soon take over as administration secretary. "This is so important, we'll find the money," he said.

The program is intended to target people who don't qualify for existing low-income weatherization programs, starting July 1. The details are still in the works, but a family of four with an income of about $42,000-$63,000 would qualify for no-interest loans and a free home energy audit that will help them prioritize work that can save them energy. Incomes of more than $63,000 might, on a gradual scale, qualify for low-interest loans, Lunderville said.

The loan program drew questions from some who wondered whether those who are struggling to pay their bills are looking for more debt. "Am I going to borrow more money to lower my usage?" asked Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier, a member of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee.

Democratic House Speaker Gaye Symington, who is challenging Douglas in this year's election, said, "I don't see people with a whole lot of capacity for taking on loans, but I'm certainly willing to consider it."

Symington said Douglas is supporting energy efficiency as the issue reaches a crisis, but has shown a lack of support for energy efficiency programs in the past, including a veto of a bill last year that he signed this year after changes were made. Douglas defended his interest in energy efficiency, saying he proposed an alternative last year that would already have been in place if the Legislature had gone along with it.

Progressive gubernatorial candidate Anthony Pollina also criticized Douglas for not planning ahead. "Why are we always responding to a crisis? Why can't we get it together to plan and solve problems before they turn into crises?" Pollina said.

[Source]

Watchdogs, continued.

Continuing in the media "watchdog" mode, it's worth recounting the following: One of the local, widely-read weeklies here (we don't have local dailies so this paper really matters) covered Anthony Pollina's recent event here with a bare, single paragraph, poorly worded, unreflective piece about the two hour meeting hosted by his campaign. Adding to the disappointment, the paper's reporter had held his own lengthy interview with Anthony. One would have thought....yet this otherwise excellent press failed to give Pollina fair coverage. This came on the heels of Gaye Symington's entry into the gubernatorial race, so it seemed to me that it was worth having a good conversation with this editor. Timing was everything.

A Winning Campaign for Governor.

We launched a campaign for Governor in March, surrounded by over 400 of our closest friends and supporters, after saying in December I would be a candidate. As far back as August I began reaching out to build a coalition strong enough to defeat an incumbent governor. I made a special effort to reach out to friends in the Democratic Party believing grassroots Democrats shared our goal of electing a governor more in touch with the needs of Vermonters. Many were very supportive. But, the Democratic State Committee refused to meet and talk about a combined effort. Recently, a Democratic candidate entered the race. We continue to gain support but some have asked about the dynamics of a race with three viable candidates. There has been a lot of speculation – and a lot of political spin – about whether I might leave the race or run for another office. I heard the rumors just as you have. It began to sound to me like insider politics, so I thought it best to come together, here in the sunlight, to end the political spin, bury the myths that cause the speculation and outline a winning  race for Governor.

Progressive Watchdogs

On Tuesday I emailed Nancy Remsen, whose Burlington Free Press article on the three gubernatorial candidates' stump stops reflected major inequities of coverage: Anthony Pollina was barely covered compared to the generous coverage given to Douglas & Symington. Remsen responded (promptly) letting me know that because "his event wasn't nearby" she couldn't "give him the same coverage". She also said that because she knew her coverage was inequitable she called Anthony about the article to explain. While that's far from what he deserves, it says there's at least some acknowledgment that shoddy journalism is not going to go unnoticed. I responded that such inequity sends a message to readers, which greatly disadvantages our candidate, and is the antithesis of good journalism. Remsen did not respond to that message...but I know she got my point.

How's the Campaign for Governor going?

Last evening Gaye Symington held her Chittenden County kickoff in Burlington (population about 40,000) at the Main Street Landing. About 60 people attended. The event lasted a few minutes beyond half an hour..... Over the weekend, Anthony Pollina spoke in Island Pond, the heart of the Northeast Kingdom, a town of 849 people at the last census. 60 people attended and stayed to discuss the issues facing Vermont for an hour and a half.... Apparently Douglas has no campaign events scheduled currently. His website invites you to check his official schedule.

Why run as a P?

This is the time when all the parties are running around trying to secure candidates for office at all levels. As we talk to people about running as Progressives it's only fair that we level with them about what's ahead. Running as a P is just about the most difficult option you could chose. Far  tougher than D, R, or I. It's not all bad news though. We support our candidates as a good party should. And we pick up votes in rural areas that Democrats struggle to earn. Witness Sandy Haas (P-Rochester) and Susan Davis (P-Washington). Both were elected besting republicans that previously held the seat. But, generally if you're interested in public service there are easier ways to go about it. There are folks in both big parties who are fighting for change. Why not just join them? Because that strategy hasn't worked. Health care is the most obvious example. The topic of universal health care has been debated since before I was born. Since I was old enough to vote the topic has dominated elections at every level. The party most likely to support comprehensive overhaul has completely and whole-heartedly failed. Clinton the first failed. Howard Dean failed. In both cases they had opportunities where they controlled all three branches of government. Is it more insane to try and build an independent party or to keep going back to the same power source that keeps letting you down? Beyond health care, does anyone really think either party recognizes the economic reality of most people? Is living paycheck to paycheck more than just a distant memory for those in office? There are good people in Montpelier, but the class consciousness of the legislature is non-existent. If we are going to change directions. If we're serious about ending the war and gaining energy independence. If we want a sustainable economy. If we believe health care is a right and protecting public schools is essential. If we want to see workers' rights protected. If we believe in democratic unions in the workplace. If we are going to honor our obligation to future generations - there is no choice. An independent, populist political party firmly based in the grassroots is essential. It's not the express path, but time has demonstrated one doesn't exist. I'm grateful many Vermonters are willing to take on this difficult task. The issues are too important to leave in the hands of the corporate parties. We should learn from history. We should break open the two-party system and treat our state to a vigorous debate. What other choice do we have?

Our Very Own Hillary

Many Democrats think Hillary Clinton's refusal to acknowledge the numbers in their presidential primary is by this time only harming her party. (Her negative and race-based campaigning doesn’t help any.)

But Hillary seems to be fighting for a principle: that she got used to thinking she would be the candidate, and in this it’s-the-Dems-election-to-lose race, the president. She also apparently has come to believe her own PR that any successes of the Bill Clinton administration reflect her deep White House experience, while its disasters such as NAFTA were done at those times when she was only a regular first lady.

She claims to want to beat John McCain (Bush III) but has been campaigning by undercutting the eventual Democratic nominee. It’s not just Democratic paranoia – she really has hurt the candidate and the party.

Now comes Gaye Symington with the same type of claim. She claims to share our desire to oust Governor Jim Douglas – an essential need for Vermont.

Essential, because Vermont’s situation is quite desperate. Far from the mere do-nothing caretaker opposing anything that constitutes progress, Douglas has avoided new opportunities and has sabotaged many of the state’s prior advances. His anti-progress, anti-competence administration is digging Vermont several big holes in everything from the environment to the economy. All apparently for the sake of, and certainly to the benefit of, big out-of-state businesses.

So we agree that Douglas needs to be replaced. The only problem with Symington’s run is that it is the best way to accomplish Douglas’ reelection, by splitting the moderate to left vote with Progressive candidate Anthony Pollina.

Syndicate content