Vermont AG William Sorrell, right, said his office lacked the evidence needed to bring criminal charges against Vermont Yankee Officials. At left is Asst. Attorney Gen. John Treadwell. VTD/Josh Larkin

Entergy Corp. filed a motion on Friday to recover $4.6 million in legal fees for its lawsuit against the state.

The Louisiana company prevailed in U.S. Federal Court on Jan. 20 when Judge J. Garvan Murtha struck down two state laws that required Entergy to seek approval from the Legislature to continue operating Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant past its 40-year anniversary and to store high level nuclear waste at the plant site.

The state has 30 days to appeal.

Entergy says it is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees because it also prevailed on its claim under the Commerce Clause.

Chanel Lagarde, spokesman for Entergy, said in a written statement that “the law allows for the prevailing party to seek recovery of attorney’s fees.”
“We believe this is the appropriate next step for our company in this case where we were compelled to challenge several Vermont state laws that we believed were unconstitutional and were in fact found to be unconstitutional,” Lagarde said.

Vermont Attorney General Bill Sorrell said he expected Entergy to file a motion for attorneys’ fees.

“I was certain it would be all of seven figures, I just didn’t know how far into seven figures it would be,” Sorrell said. “It’s a little higher than I thought.”

Sorrell said “they threw a lot of legal horsepower at us, they went into the record extensively and they charged New York City rates.”

The state can challenge the amount of the fee, Sorrell said. “This is a long way from over,” he said. The state can question whether Entergy’s lawyers spent a reasonable amount of time on the case and whether their hourly charge is reasonable. The company can’t claim relief for any legal work related to the questions about the reliability of the nuclear plant, Sorrell said.

It’s not unusual for litigants to go through a mediation process and retain experts to review attorneys’ fees, according to Sorrell.

“It’s not that they get to say this is what you give us,” Sorrell said. “There’s a lot of lawyering to be done on a request of this magnitude.”

Sorrell pointed to the prescription datamining case as an example of how the state has negotiated with other litigants. The state lost the case against IMS, a drug datamining company last summer in proceedings before the U.S. Supreme Court. The attorney general said he couldn’t reveal how much IMS is requesting for attorneys’ fees, but he said the state is negotiating with the company to reach a settlement. The state has already settled with one of the litigants in the case, Pharma, an advocacy group affiliated with IMS for about $1.75 million.

Will Entergy’s $4.6 million request affect Sorrell’s decision to appeal? “Not really,” he said.

“Some have speculated that we would be intimidated by the amount not to go further with an appeal,” Sorrell said. “Others have said it reinforces the reasonableness of an appeal because if the decision is overturned, we don’t pay a dime. We’ll look at the appeal on its own merits.”

Editor’s note: This story was updated 5:40 a.m. Feb. 4.

VTDigger

A few hours later, Mayor Bob Kiss demonstrated that he does not plan to be a lame duck by issuing a strong statement that defended TIF and said the question will remain part of the March ballot.

The Council’s move came in response to recent report by state Auditor of Accounts Tom Salmon that examined Milton’s TIF, which was created in 1998. The audit argues that Milton now owes $3.4 million to the state tax department due to confusion over the handling of education taxes. No decision has been made about whether any money will have to be paid.

Vermont laws have been updated since the Milton TIF was created to help avoid such confusion. But City Councilors in Burlington, led by Republican Mayoral candidate Kurt Wright, decided that delaying a vote until November or later was preferable to asking for approval while questions linger.

In explaining his decision, Mayor Kiss noted that, despite the council’s vote, members also voiced unanimous support for the proposal. “I do not believe it is constructive to remove the TIF question from the March ballot at the eleventh hour, after substantial efforts by many, with strong support from numerous stakeholders,” he wrote.

“We should be open to questions from the public, not fearful of them,” Kiss added, suggesting that Council members “focus their energy on supporting the TIF question for this March by actively working to inform the public on why it is important to the City’s future.”

On Dec. 5, the Council voted unanimously to ask for voter approval of a downtown TIF. Establishing a new district would empower the council itself to borrow up to $10 million “by pledging the credit of the city” to subsidize and stimulate promising redevelopment ideas. At the time of their first vote a few councilors expressed concerns, but only about how the public might view the proposal.

Since then Wright and Democrat Miro Weinberger have mentioned it as a tool they hope to employ in pursuing projects. Weinberger has discussed it as part of a plan to save Centennial Field by exploring a “new ownership structure” with UVM. Wright frequently mentions it in relation to a key promise, getting a development project started within three years on the gateway “superblock” that includes Memorial Auditorium.

On Friday, however, he urged Mayor Kiss to follow his lead, and that of the Council, by allowing the item’s removal from the ballot. Looking down the table at the man he hopes to replace, Wright said, “Don’t let your last legacy be something that hurts the city.”

Wright, who is also a state representative, argued that “there is a big cloud up there [in Montpelier] around this issue.” If the mayor keeps it on the ballot, he threatened, “it goes down in flames.”

David Hartnett, a Ward 4 Democrat who is managing Wright’s campaign, added that reconsidering an earlier decision “is the way it’s supposed to work. This is it right here.”

The vote came at the end of a brief Special Meeting requested by Democrat Joan Shannon. Progressive Vince Brennan had circulated an e-mail on the issue, and, according to Shannon, questions about the timing of the ballot item were raised by Wright.

Although attendance was sparse due to the short notice, a few residents did receive sufficient notice. Both Weinberger and Independent candidate Wanda Hines were present, listening carefully as Church Street Marketplace director Jeff Nick, a self-identified TIF proponent, said that March would be “the wrong time to bring it to voters. We need time to get people familiar” with the concept.

Burlington Business Association Director Kelly Devine, who has been part of the team developing the plan, said it “could have huge benefits” but nevertheless felt that “things in the press are working against us.”

State Auditor Tom Salmon released the Milton report on Jan. 19, the second of four planned TIF audits. The first one examined Newport’s TIF last June. A draft of Burlington’s audit is circulating, but may be revised before its public release sometime in March. Winooski will be the subject of the fourth audit.

Salmon recently criticized Burlington for failing to respond to requests about its management of cash and internal controls. Councilors mentioned that the current distrust of city government, due to its handling of Burlington Telecom and other financial matters, makes passage of TIF and tax increases difficult.

The main concern expressed about bringing TIF to a vote in March, however, was that the public does not yet understand the concept. “This should not be construed as wavering support,” insisted Shannon. “We all feel it is important to the future of the city.” She described removing the item as a “small step back” so that “we can all move forward.”

Brennan also called himself as a “big supporter,” but acknowledged that “misinformation is out there.” An amendment he introduced, saying that the council could would work to make sure the proposal is on the November ballot, attracted only two other votes.

Democrat Ed Adrian blamed the Council for failing to ask enough questions. “This is a failure of leadership on our part as much as the mayor,” he said.

Another Democrat, David Berezniak, reminded his colleagues that “we knew it would be a hard sell.” He also noted that Wright did little to clarify the issue when questions were raised at a Ward 7 Neighborhood Planning Assembly meeting on Tuesday.

With the outcome of the Council vote a foregone conclusion, Wright’s main focus turned to confronting the mayor. “Take heed,” he told Kiss, “Listen to the business community.”

In his written response, Kiss repeated that a “downtown TIF district is a critical element of the City’s economic development plans. It will promote new businesses and jobs while financing public infrastructure that benefits everyone in the community. Approval of the TIF question on the March ballot will allow the City to take the next step of identifying specific downtown TIF projects. “

He noted that this approach to financing development won’t incur any city debt or force it to pursue a specific project. Any idea would have to be approved by the Vermont Economic Progress Council. Once that happened, “the City will only incur debt through another vote by residents or the City Council at a future time.”

Kiss reminded the Council that Burlington has successfully used the same financing method “to develop the Waterfront into one of Burlington and Vermont’s most important places for both residents and visitors alike, promoting business development, housing, and public access and infrastructure.”

The mayor has previously also pointed out that Burlington is among “an elite group of municipalities that have this opportunity.” Newport, Milton, Colchester and Hartford also have state approval for TIFs. Burlington has a similar district covering most of the waterfront, but the downtown TIF would give the city more latitude in developing various elements within the district.

Possible projects could include a public parking facility on the TD Bank block and infrastructure improvements in under-developed or distressed areas. The new TIF district would include at least 17 contiguous blocks, between Pearl and Maple Streets, and from Union to Battery Street near the waterfront.

Cities use TIFs for everything from demolition, planning, storm drainage, street construction and lighting to landscaping, curb and sidewalk work, park improvements, and parking structures.

VTDigger

Author Bill Mares

Editor’s note: This review is used with permission from the author Haviland Smith and was first published by Hearst Newspapers.

Vermont Public Radio runs a daily program called the “Commentary Series.” The program invites selected Vermont residents to give short presentations on topics of interest to them which the authors think might be interesting to the greater VPR listenership.

Bill Mares, the ultimate renaissance man, is one of those commentators. Happily, he now has put together a book which contains some 58 of the talks he has given on the radio. It is called “3:14 and Out” reflecting the amount of time allotted him for his presentations.

Mares, a graduate of Harvard College, has been a journalist, world traveler, writer, high school teacher, marathon runner, state legislator, fly fisherman, brewer and beekeeper.

There is, as the reader will see, little that is not of interest to him and on which he is not prepared to write. He writes with insight and humor, never missing an opportunity to present some thought or event which will permit the reader to actually learn something. His secret is that he does this in a sneakily provocative way that no reader will find offensive.

Mares is thoughtful and literate and his writings range widely.

About a gathering of his college glee club: “Like most reunions, this one was built upon the slippery foundations of parallel memories. As we sang our warm-up scales, the scales of age on faces and vocal chords fell away.”

He writes of the joys of teaching and of turning his students into intellectuals, people “at home with ideas.”

“I was raised to believe that ideas ARE important, that what you do with your MIND is at least as important as what you DO. I was also taught that maturity does not bring certitude but the ability to live with ambiguity and complexity. While many questions might be clear, most answers are murky. Not for nothing does my license plate read THINK!

About rugby, a sport Mares played in college, he wrote: “Rugby is not a staple on America TV; I’ve seen more ultimate Frisbee there than rugby. In one sense, rugby is football without pads or blocking. But it’s more a hybrid of soccer and football, with continuous play, quick kicks, flashy runs, graceful two-arm passes and the brute force of clashing rhinos. Its terminology is full of wonderful Anglo-Saxon monosyllables like: ruck, mark, try, lock, scrum, hook and prop.”

In an obituary for the English explorer, Wilfred Thesiger, Mares wrote of the contrasting sides to his personality: “He bemoaned the softening effects settled civilization brought to the nomads he ennobled in words and photos, but when I met him in London for tea he was dressed in a three piece suit, and, but for his world-weathered face, looked like any anonymous civil servant.

The author talks to the American everyman and at the same time, manages to sprinkle his book with the erudite quotations of a broadly read intellectual.

He comfortably and unostentatiously cites quotes from Oscar Wilde, Isaac Walton, A.E. Houseman, Mark Twain, Cicero, Gladwell and Niebuhr as well as from friends and family. His writings cover a wide array of topics that permit him to travel effortlessly from Vermont through the Middle East, Latin America, Asia and Europe.

This is not just a book for Vermonters. There is something here for everyone. Mares covers his waterfront from journalism through education and beekeeping to passionate internationalist exhortations that America do the right thing in the world.

Mares has produced these little gems with a care of a beekeeper, the finesse of a fly fisherman, the eloquence of a Cantabrigian, the durability of a marathon runner and the thoroughness of a journalist, all of which, at one time or another, he is, or has been.

Haviland Smith is a retired CIA officer who lives in Vermont.

VTDigger

State v. Abdi, 2012 VT 4

If you are a denizen of the Internet, as is obviously the case if you are reading this article, then you probably understand the burning itch to find more information about a very particular subject. You know the feeling: you have a conversation about an obscure topic, be it the proper pronunciation of the word “neanderthal” or the air speed of an unladen swallow, and you cannot rest until you have googled enough information on the subject to pass a standardized test in either anthropology or aerodynamics. The Internet has effectively erased the barriers between the average human and his or her ability to gather large amounts of meaningless information on random subjects without resorting to bookshelf or library. No longer does laziness stand in the way of curiosity. In other words, it is the future, and we are all Cliff Clavin.

The ease of access to such massive volumes of largely useless information takes center stage in today’s case, cast alongside a set of truly distasteful facts that are largely inapposite to the court’s opinion. Suffice it to say that the underlying circumstances of the case involve an accusation of several instances of sexual assault on a child, Defendant’s niece. Defendant is a recent Somali Bantu immigrant to Vermont. Upon learning of the victim’s accusations, which in Somali Bantu law and culture are not taken seriously without adult testimony or further inquiry, the elders of Defendant’s community sought out Defendant in his home and confronted him. The elders asked him to swear thrice on the Koran that he did not assault his niece. Defendant denied the accusations twice with a “no,” but replied the third time with a “yes.” The Bantu elders then contacted the police.

At trial the Defendant’s culture and religion, and the elders’ methods of addressing such accusations, came to bear on the credibility of the various Bantu witnesses who testified. The jury returned a guilty verdict following a two-day trial. Several days later, a member of the jury notified the trial court that one of the other jurors “went on the internet” after the first day of deliberations and returned with a printed definition of “incompetent juror.” The Defendant filed a motion for new trial alleging jury misconduct, and the trial court hauled the jurors back in to court to question them regarding the matter.

The issue of jury misconduct is rooted in the trial rights afforded to all criminal defendants under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, including the right to a jury trial and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses testifying against the defendant. Over time, the courts have interpreted these rights to require that a jury’s verdict be based entirely on the evidence presented to the jury at trial, to ensure that every criminal defendant receives “a fair trial free of extraneous influences.”

But as sometimes happens, the curious mind of the Internet user, accustomed to instant access to information, overcomes even explicit instructions by the trial court judge to not seek any information from outside the court room to aid in deliberation. During the course of the misconduct hearing, the court discovered that yet another juror had utilized the internet, this time to research the Somali Bantu culture and religion, what “drives and motivates the Somalians,” and “what may have influenced them to make their decisions on the answers they gave.”

Unsurprisingly, following the misconduct hearing, Defendant filed a supplemental motion requesting a new trial for this second instance of jury misconduct. The trial court concluded that the jurors’ indiscretions amounted to an “irregularity” that was unrelated to the substance of the trial and incapable of influencing the verdict, and denied Defendant’s motion for new trial.

On appeal, the SCOV considers both the Defendant’s claims of jury misconduct, though the opinion only addresses the misconduct arising from the internet Somali Bantu research. Due to the importance of not polluting the jury deliberation process, and of preserving the criminal defendant’s right to a fair jury trial, Rule 606(b) of the Vermont Rules of Evidence protects former jurors from having to testify regarding the validity of a verdict. When a charge of jury misconduct is brought, however, Rule 606(b) permits a juror to testify to the presence of “extraneous prejudicial information” in jury deliberations.

As the SCOV has applied Rule 606(b) over the years, it has developed a two-prong objective inquiry that translates into an evidentiary dance at the trial court level. In raising a claim that the “extraneous prejudicial information” improperly influenced the jury, the Defendant must first demonstrate that an irregularity occurred, and that it had the capacity to affect the jury’s decision. The State must then demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the extraneous information was harmless. The trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the extraneous information warrants a new trial. Out of respect for the trial court’s unique position in taking evidence and observing jury reactions, the SCOV will only reverse the trial court’s decision on a showing that the judge abused his discretion.

At trial, Defendant demonstrated sufficiently that the juror’s unidentified Internet research on the subject of Somali Bantu culture was an irregularity with the potential to influence the verdict. The SCOV therefore quickly narrows its discussion to the precise question it must decide upon: whether the State met its evidentiary burden in demonstrating that the Internet information had no prejudicial effect on the jurors.

The SCOV takes issue with the evidentiary burden the trial court applied to the question, noting that the judge only found by a preponderance of the evidence that the State had proven harmless error. But regardless of this evidentiary gaffe, the SCOV concludes that the State did not meet its burden for two reasons. First, the SCOV dismisses the trial court’s conclusion that the outside research conducted by one juror did not influence the others by noting that a criminal Defendant is entitled to a jury of twelve, not eleven, impartial citizens.

Second, the SCOV examines the influence of Somali Bantu culture and religion on the testimony of witnesses from Defendant’s community, and concludes that an understanding of Somali Bantu was central to the jury’s ability to interpret the evidence at trial. The SCOV concludes that the use of such information by one juror, on a subject so central to the case, and to which the Defendant had no opportunity to respond, clearly had the capacity to influence the jury’s verdict. Any reasonable judge would have reached the same conclusion.

Having found reason to remand to the trial court on these grounds, the SCOV declines to address the printout of the definition of “incompetent juror.” The opinion closes with a suggestion that the trial courts consider adopting jury instructions that describe in detail the extent to which a juror may not consult outside sources of information, providing in a footnote the language of an exemplary instruction from the State of Colorado. As the SCOV says, “[w]e cannot ignore the realities of our ‘information age.” But we can try to close the tubes.

VTDigger

In all likelihood the Republican presidential primary is down to two. Yes, as of this writing Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are still in the race and both have declared that they are in it for the long haul. However, the pressure on these two to get out of the race will be mounting as the slugfest between the Newt and the Mitt continues in debate after debate after debate.

The many debates that these candidates have had have served a purpose. They have helped to educate Republican voters on their possible choices for the candidate of their choice to go up against an incumbent president who’s had the luxury of sitting back and watching the show.

And what a show it has become. We’ve seen Mr. Santorum wearing his conservatism on his sleeve, but for some unexplained reason he doesn’t seem to excite the conservative base. Perhaps it could be because he’s not that exciting; certainly not a disqualifier for serving as president (remember, we sent Calvin Coolidge down there, ya know).

Then there’s Ron Paul. Here is a man who has tossed out ideas that even I have liked. For instance, he’s not a big fan of jumping into war willy-nilly, as our previous president was fond of doing. However, he does come across as the crazy uncle at the family Thanksgiving dinner. (I can forgive him for that as there are those in my family who’d put me in that category as well. I love them just the same.)

So the Republicans are seemingly left between a guy who wants us to move to the moon and a guy who has never held fewer than two positions on every issue imaginable. The Republicans have strived, begged and pleaded for someone, anyone to come forward other than the Mitt. Michelle Bachmann, the slightly more than moderately insane congresswoman from Minnesota, was originally the darling of the party, but she quickly fell from grace once she began speaking.

Rick Perry led the pack briefly until he couldn’t remember the third agency that he would abolish, thus providing Americans of all stripes with one of the most excruciating video clips ever recorded. I’ve never been a big fan of Texas governors, but I would hope that there was not one among us who couldn’t feel a little sympathy for this guy. Notwithstanding the fact that he was not presidential timber, all of us over 50 can be a little forgiving of someone forgetting something.

There wasn’t a lot of forgiveness to be had with Herman Cain, with the exception of Stephen Colbert who invited Cain to campaign with him in South Carolina. One wonders who does the vetting of these guys. Cain was a bus accident waiting to happen. The only question is what took so long.

John Huntsman was apparently the only rational one of the bunch. It was very clear from the start that he was not going to last long.

Now we’re down to two (not counting the other two); a Mitt and a Newt. They are fun to watch. You may remember not too long ago, after Newt led the impeachment of Bill Clinton, that the term “family values” was the standard bearer of the Republican Party. What a difference a decade or so makes. Newt is a serial adulterer. He was committing adultery while he was persecuting a president for doing the same thing. No double standard there. He was brought up on ethics charges while serving this country and paid a hefty fine. His colleagues stripped him of his position as Speaker of the House. Maybe he’ll do better on the moon.

That leaves us with the candidate in the primary that 76 percent of Republicans don’t want to see as their candidate; the Mitt. Why would Republicans distrust this man so? Could it be because he supported a woman’s right to choose before he opposed it (John Kerry comes to mind)? Could it be because he supported mandatory health care before he opposed it? Maybe because he supported climate change before he opposed it, or that he supported the bank bailouts before he opposed them?

John Kerry got his clocked cleaned, for among other reasons, because he was perceived as a flip-flopper on the Iraq War. Apparently now if a candidate flip-flops on key issues and core beliefs, all is forgiven; or maybe not.

The Republicans are in a tough spot. It appears as though their candidate is going to be the poster child for the 1 percent. He’s incredibly wealthy having made a fortune, not by manufacturing anything of value, but by being a predator buying up marginal businesses, loading them with debt and then selling them off for a profit, while ruining lives of everyday people. He’s also known for having tied his dog to the roof of his car and driving to Canada on a family trip.

It’ll be interesting to see how President Obama fares. Perhaps he’s not been a great president, but he did kill Bin Laden and didn’t tie his dog on the roof of his car.

VTDigger

Originally House bill SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and Senate bill PIPA (Protect IP Act) were bipartisan bad policy. The Senate version was reported unanimously from the Judiciary Committee and was supported not only by Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) but also by the senior Republican on the committee, Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

These bills, written largely by Hollywood lobbyists, would have done great harm to Internet-enhanced freedom both in the United States and around the world. They were a massive overreaction to the real (although not well quantified) problems of content piracy and counterfeit goods on the Internet. Oh yeah, they also helped protect Hollywood from “new media,” legitimate or otherwise.

Internet denizens used the net and social media to fight back … and companies like Google and Facebook lobbied in more traditional ways as well. Wikipedia went dark for a day in protest exciting a rebuke from former Sen. Chris Dodd – yeah, the guy who received special treatment from the mortgage companies he defended in Congress, who is now the CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America:

“It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services.

“It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today. It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.”

Wikipedia, of course, is a free service; it’s supported by donations. But Dodd thinks it is inappropriate for it to withhold service for a day to make a point. Of course, we all know what happens if a content provider can’t reach agreement with a cable service — blackout. But that’s OK; it’s just about the money. But I digress.

By and large the first politicians to desert SOPA and PIPA were Republicans. This surprised many of my more liberal friends since, at heart, this is a civil liberties issue and they think of Democrats as being more committed to civil liberties. Here’s Dan Gillmor:

“Two more Republican senators have withdrawn support for Internet censorship today, adding to a growing unease in Congress over what lawmakers had been poised to do with SOPA/PIPA. But the Democrats, for the most part, are still firmly in support of this pernicious legislation.

“For example, both California senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, are co-sponsors of PIPA. They’ve taken Hollywood’s side against Silicon Valley and the great majority of their constituents — choosing to help an industry that holds back progress over one that creates it …

“I lived in Vermont for many years, and was a huge fan of Patrick Leahy, the longtime Democratic senior senator from the Green Mountain State. His ardent desire to pass PIPA is a sad reminder of how a man who once believed in civil liberties — freedom of speech in this case — has become a bought-and-paid-for hack on some issues, such as this one.

“Yes, many powerful GOP members — especially Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, chief sponsor and author of SOPA — remain firmly on the copyright cartel’s side. But it won’t be long, if current trends, before we’ll have to call the Republicans the party of progress on this issue.”

Now I do hope Republicans can become known as “the party of progress” on many issues, but I’m afraid I know the true reasons why Republicans quickly switched sides on this debate. It wasn’t even the campaign contributions.

It was the content.

In domestic movies, Republican types are often the villains — evil bankers, car company executives, nuclear power plant operators, defilers of the environment. Oh, they don’t always wear GOP pins, but we know who they are.

On the other hand, how many movies have you seen about evil environmental activists, labor leaders (since “On The Waterfront”), alternative energy developers or community activists.

These are always the good guys. And obviously Democrats.

When push came to shove, the Democrats stuck with the people who have portrayed them so nicely … and the Republicans got their revenge.

Don’t worry, though; there’s sure to be a sequel.

VTDigger

Montpelier, February 2, 2012: Vermont Early Educators United-AFT (VEEU-AFT) will hold its annual Lobby Day at the state capitol on Tuesday, February 7th. Home and center based providers from across the state are coming to the capitol to ensure that their elected officials address the challenges facing the early childhood education and care system in Vermont. This year early educators will be joined by Vermont Parents United.

Early educators in Vermont have been organizing for over two years to have a seat at the table when decisions are made that affect their profession. H.97/S.29, a bill that passed the House of Representatives last year by a vote of 90 to 54, would recognize their right to organize and to have a voice in decisions. The bill is currently in the Senate.

The impact early educators are having on the public policy conversation in Montpelier was evident this week, as key lawmakers began to discuss increasing funding for the state’s child care subsidy program. This has been a top priority among providers and parents, and having it under discussion in Montpelier is an important victory. “Knowing the needs and struggles of the families I serve, an increase in subsidy will prove greatly beneficial in maintaining high quality care for all children,” Claire Berry, a registered home provider in Hardwick said. “It is no accident or coincidence that after decades of allowing subsidy rates and eligibility guidelines to fall behind, the legislature is addressing this issue today,” she continued. “They are paying attention because we are organizing.” 

Early Educators and parents will spend the day at the State House and Capitol Plaza meeting with lawmakers to discuss these issues and others that impact young children and the adults who care for them. Elected officials and supporting organizations will join early educators at 11:30 am in State House Room 11 for a press conference.

VTDigger

Date: February 2, 2012
Contact: Agatha Kessler
Phone: 802-828-2271
Fax: 802-828-2424

Public Hearing on Vermont Senate Reapportionment Proposal

Montpelier , VT – The Vermont Senate Committee on Reapportionment will hold a public hearing to take comment on a proposed draft 2012 Senate Reapportionment Plan. The draft proposed attempts to institute the minimal number of required changes to the current Senate districts necessary to bring the districts acceptable deviations.

The public hearing will be on Wednesday, February 8th, 2012 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. in Room 10 of the Vermont State House at 133 State Street in Montpelier .

Members of the public are invited to attend the hearing and to provide oral or written testimony to the Senate Committee on Reapportionment. Written comments on the draft plan must be submitted by February 8th, 2012 to the attention of the Senate Reapportionment Committee to the address provided above or by e-mail to akessler@leg.state.vt.us. Please include the phrase “Reapportionment Comments” in the subject line.

After taking into account the comments and concerns from the public, the Committee will finalize its proposal in a matter of weeks for submission to the full Senate. Once both chambers of the General Assembly have approved a proposal in the form of a bill, it will be presented to the Governor for his signature. The legislature is working to complete the Reapportionment project by April.

The draft 2012 Senate Reapportionment Plan is available on the Legislative Website at:
www.leg.state.vt.us/reapportionment

VTDigger

SOUTH ROYALTON, VT –– Following a federal study released Monday showing pythons’ devastating impact on the Everglades, a new study by a Vermont Law School alumnus proposes a detailed comprehensive federal law to curtail invasive and exotic animal species that are causing environmental, economic and public health risks across the American landscape.

“Forget the war on drugs. What the United States needs is a war on invasive animal species,” writes Jane Graham, author of the study, titled “Snakes on a Plain, or in a Wetland: Fighting Back Invasive Nonnative Animals—Proposing a Federal Comprehensive Invasive Nonnative Animal Species Statute.” The attached article is published in Volume 25, Issue 1 of the Tulane Environmental Law Journal.

The proposed law addresses creatures great and small—from Burmese pythons that are devouring native wildlife in the Everglades (according to a study by the U.S. Geological Study released Monday) to the lions, tigers and bears released from a private compound in Ohio in October.

Scholars and regulators have advised the federal government to create a comprehensive scheme, but no such statute or proposed statute exists.

“U.S. laws dealing with the critical problem of invasive species are lacking central pieces and are uncoordinated,” writes Graham, who received an LL.M. in environmental law from Vermont Law School in 2011. “A new comprehensive statute could improve mechanisms for prevention, punishment, cost recovery and incentives.”

The United States’ current menagerie of federal, state and local laws are ineffective in controlling Burmese pythons, Asian carp, zebra mussels, exotic pets and other invaders that are causing a growing amount of environmental degradation, economic waste, public health risks, human injuries and wildlife trafficking, according to the study.

Graham argues that current federal statutes and frameworks—including the Lacey Act, Executive Order 13112, National Invasive Species Act and laws that deal with single species—are either too broad or too narrow; lack cost recovery and incentive tools; are reactive; do not have the force of law; are too vague; or lack significant penalties.

Other laws—such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and the Animal Health Protection Act as well as state laws, public nuisance laws, free market solutions and exotic pet restrictions—also are insufficient, according to the article.

The article proposes a model federal law that calls for:

A “clean” list of species that are allowed into the country instead of the current “dirty” list that prohibits specific species.

A process that explains exactly how risk assessment decisions will be determined.

Uniform restrictions on exotic—and potentially all—animal ownership.

Increased public awareness of invasive animal laws.

Higher and uniform fines and criminal penalties for violations.

Methods to fund restoration of ecosystems damaged by invasive species.

Entrepreneurship and partnerships between government and private businesses.

Graham is available to comment at janecynthiagraham@gmail.com or 561.271.5766. Her article was written with guidance from her master’s thesis advisor VLS Assistant Professor Pamela Vesilind. Graham is currently Everglades Policy Associate for Audubon of Florida in Miami.

VTDigger

(FRIDAY, Feb. 3) — Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Friday welcomed the announcement by officials of Susan G. Komen for the Cure that they intend to reverse the group’s controversial decision to stop supporting cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood clinics.

Leahy, long a leader in the Senate in advancing breast cancer research and prevention, said, “A bad decision threatened to stand in the way of lifesaving cancer screenings for thousands of women. I am glad that the foundation heard and felt the groundswell of appeals from Vermont and across the nation on behalf of women’s health and common sense.”

In some areas of the country Planned Parenthood clinics are the only option for women to have annual exams and breast cancer screenings. Planned Parenthood’s 10 clinics in Vermont accomplished about 4500 breast cancer screenings last year.

Leahy on Thursday was one of 26 U.S. senators who called for the foundation to reverse its decision, in a letter the senators sent to Nancy Brinker, the Komen organization’s founder and CEO. On Friday, the group’s leaders changed course and announced that the foundation would continue to fund breast cancer screenings by Planned Parenthood.

VTDigger