Are Burlington’s Boards and Commissions Representative? Part 1 of 3


In the coming week I will discuss, in a several part series, why our board and commission process, from public outreach to voting, is deeply deeply flawed. It is so flawed, in fact, that it’s impressive our boards and commissions have any diversity, but homogeneity isn’t as far off as you may think.

Today I’d like you to take a look at the commission and board data I collected from the 2016-2017 year. Names were removed to protect privacy (even though this is all public information, which I’m happy to share for the doubters among us), and the points on the map are congregating in a general location so as to keep home addresses private. It is also important to note that ‘home value’ is actually ‘assessed value’, which means housing values are only around 85% of the true value. I’ve chosen to stick with the assessed numbers, for consistency and for reasons that will be come clear in later posts.

Town Meeting Day Brings A Toothless Housing Ballot Item

Last March, as cofounder of Fight for 15 Burlington, I helped city councilors put a nonbinding question on the ballot. At the time, I was incredibly proud – being able to affect such change, to help bring a better living standard to so many of my friends, coworkers, and neighbors. I was told that while the ballot question was incredibly vague and had no enforcement, it would help move the conversation forward on the state level.

Those arguments sounded good – and nearly every councilor voted for it, except the Republican and Republican/Democrat. It helped not only the progressive (small p) city councilors running for election and reelection, but even some of the Democratic councilors. And why not support it? No one had to make any concrete plans or promises, they didn’t have to take any political risks. Even Mayor Weinberger, although at first opposed, eventually came around to supporting the ballot item, likely because he also recognized how toothless and free of political risk the question was.

As the months went by, I thought that even though the ballot item was nonbinding, since it was supported by 75% of voters that Progressive councilors and Councilor Shannon (a vocal booster of the question) would recognize that there were concrete steps they could take in the following months while waiting for the state to raise the minimum wage. They could have expanded the livable wage ordinance, got rid of all the exemptions, could have taxed businesses over a certain size that don’t pay a livable wage, or at the very least had a public conversation about this on the local level. What did those councilors end up doing? Nothing.

In retrospect, while I felt embarrassed to have my name associated with pointless feelgood measures, it was an important learning lesson. When a ballot item or ordinance is supported by a majority of councilors, especially when supported by councilors who tend to be fairly fiscally or socially conservative, that is a good sign that the bill has no purpose, no teeth, and is really just meant for local politicians to look good without having to take any political risks.

So is the case with the new housing ballot item, and it may be no coincidence that just like the $15 ballot item, Councilor Knodell was the one to introduce it.

“Shall the voters of the city of Burlington in order to help the city’s nonprofit housing organizations build more affordable housing throughout the city, advise the city council to identify and adopt progressive local option revenues, the proceeds of which shall be used exclusively to benefit the city’s housing trust fund?”

During Monday’s council meeting, the question was changed to strike the specific tax language in lieu of the looser “local option revenues.” It passed on a vote of 9-3, with Councilors Kurt Wright, R-Ward 4, Dave Hartnett, I-North District, and Joan Shannon, D-South District, opposed.”

The only way I can see this ballot item having merit is if those who voted in favor of it promise, if citizens support it, to follow through. I’d love to be made wrong on this one.

Phil Scott – Vermont’s Second-Home Worried Governor

 

“Many folks on fixed incomes what {want} to stay here in Vermont and can’t afford that second home elsewhere,” Scott said. “They deserve, as much as anyone, to live with the dignity in retirement they earned through a lifetime of work.”

Retired Vermonters on fixed incomes shouldn’t be paying taxes on their social security, especially if they are living in or near poverty, are renters, or owe a lot of debt on their home. But it sure seems strange for Phil Scott to focus on Vermonters who own second homes, most of whom probably are making more than a household $70,000 a year. It’s hard enough to live in Vermont on that combined salary, nevermind pay property taxes, insurance, upkeep, travel expenses on a second home. 60% of Burlington residents own 0 homes, never-mind 2.

Here’s the other kicker – $6.1 million dollars a year, for 35,000 retirees, means they will save on average $174 a year. Please show me someone who owns a vacation home and is leaving the state to save $174 a year. That must be one small second home, and one really tight budget.

Burlington’s Fishy Private Marina Process

Please do not excuse the pun – little do you know I get paid by the pun.
There was a PIAP (public investment action plan) that occurred a couple years ago when the city wanted to redevelop parts of the waterfront. I remember reading about the details and finding a couple points that just didn’t quite add up.
1) The PIAP was won by private developers Burlington Harbor LLC, a group made up of three folks, one of whom is Chuck DesLauriers, co-owner of Hotel Vermont. Hotel Vermont was designed by architects at Truex and Cullins. The chair of the PIAP process? Bill Truex.
2) The private PIAP got a final score of 79, while the public marina scored 78.8, and I have been unable to find how they were scored. That’s so close for comfort, one would hope that every aspect of that grading process would be as transparent and open to the public as possible. A records request may soon be in order if I cannot find those documents soon.
One would hope that local leaders would recognize that the appearance of conflict can be just as destructive as an actual conflict, but the appearance may be the least troubling aspect of this process. It turns out that 3 months after the PIAP was completed, Burlington Parks and Rec won a prestigious $1,500,000 national award from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for their rejected proposal.
This leaves us with a few really important questions: How was the PIAP process done, and did those involved in the PIAP process know that Parks and Rec had submitted a huge grant? If it was known, why wouldn’t the city wait the 3-4 months until they knew if Parks and Rec would win the grant, and factor that into their final PIAP decisions? Also, after learning that the Perkins Pier Enhancement may still be happening, what is the point of a PIAP process in the first place if the city can decide to move forward with whatever proposals they want? And lastly how, if this project was good enough to beat nearly every major city in the nation, did it manage to lose on the city level?

Burlington Needs to Hold Slumlords like Bove Accountable

The city council recently did business with local slumlord Rick Bove in overwhelming support, voting 9-3. It seems that the 70 housing codes the Bove family amassed over the past few years, did not factor into the minds of our elected leaders. The priority to build up our downtown core seems more important to our city than ensuring that working class residents can live with dignity. As our city continues to grow, now is the time to create more protections for our most vulnerable neighbors, to ensure that slumlords like Rick Bove are held responsible for their actions.

A little background is needed to understand why I would make such a bold claim against a renowned Burlington family. Over the past 4 years the Boves have amassed over 70 housing code violations on their 16 properties, not far behind notorious slumlord Soon Kwon, with one property falling into such disrepair it was condemned by the city and tenants were forced to move. According to Seven Days, in 2013 the city even held their liquor license hostage so that the Boves would pay and fix over 40 housing code violations.

Rick Bove’s response to Seven Days? “You can write whatever you like, it doesn’t matter to me.” Clearly, it also doesn’t matter to him what terrible, heartbreaking conditions his tenants live in.

At my NPA, I wanted to understand why slumlords like the Boves are given countless chances to change without any serious repercussions or consequences. While it was heartening to hear Councilor Roof admit that the Boves have been slumlords for decades, it was discomforting to know that he and other elected officials have done little (to little effect) to curb these criminal behaviors. Several councilors even stated that the ends, more housing in the city, justified the means, slumlords being encouraged to develop and own more property in Burlington.

One would think our elected officials should be doing everything in their power to discourage criminal behavior, and recognize that positive ends rarely justify destructive means.

Why are landlords allowed to have outstanding fines for so long? Why hasn’t the city council enacted and funded more vigorous protections and enforcement? What are they now going to do to start addressing a long-ignored problem?

There is some hope coming from our Code Enforcement Director, Bill Ward. He has been working with a city attorney to find ways to revoke landlords’ rental licenses when they act like slumlords and amass many fines.

While this is a really great start, now more than ever we need to ask our elected leaders to ensure all residents have stable, safe housing, and that landlords who racks up fines will be held responsible – particularly by the city taking away their rental license, and refusing to do business with them until they have made a long-term effort to change their past behavior.

The YMCA’s Early Education Expansion Will Help Itself, Hurt Others

As someone who works directly with vulnerable populations, it’s often hard to feel optimistic in the current national and local political environment. It’s particularly difficult to see policy decisions and actions taking place in our city that inadvertently end up negatively impacting the vulnerable populations they are meant to help. The YMCA’s planned early education expansion is a good example of this, where they will add 100 more classroom spaces, 50% for families on childcare subsidy. On the surface this looks like a clearly positive addition to the city and especially for children living in poverty, but without any coordination from the larger early education community, this decision will likely do more damage than good.

Last week I wrote about how Burlington’s early education system is strained to the point of full-blown crisis. One critical part of this crisis is that preschools, in programs throughout the spectrum, have significant trouble finding and retaining highly educated teachers who can work with traumatized populations. A friend of mine at a different highly rated center said it took them an entire year to fill a single teaching spot. It turns out that when the cost of living is high and early educators make under $15 an hour, graduates choose to move elsewhere. That’s not even considering the nearly $30,000 in average debt students have when they graduate UVM, with debt repayments equaling 6 weeks of pay for 10+ consecutive years.

My school offers a good example, and I hope this information won’t get me into trouble, but I do believe it’s important to be honest and open about how our school struggles. My school is one of the best in the city if not the state (I say this to brag about the amazing work of my coworkers and directors, because if I was as good as them I’d be more focused on curriculum, not on political blogging!), and we recently put out an ad to hire substitute teachers on a per diem basis. After 3 months, only one person sent in an application. I think it’s pretty clear that the situation is dire.

Now, in a system where quality teachers are already scarce, the YMCA is looking to add 50 infant/toddler spots and 50 preschool spots. If we assume that 2 FT and 1 PT teachers will be hired for every classroom, which is fairly common, and each infant/toddler classroom has 8 children while each preschool classroom has 16 children, the Y will need to hire conservatively 27 teachers, most of whom will need 4-year college degrees and a teaching license. So, while it is nearly impossible to find lower-qualified substitutes, the Y will need another 27 highly trained educators. Add the fact that last year at the governor’s Blue Ribbon Commission, after reading this letter that my staff and I wrote discussing our successes and challenges, newly hired YMCA CEO Kyle Dodson commented that the letter was overly dramatic. I have a lot of doubt that these new positions will pay a fair, livable wage. I feel sorry for the unlucky worker who has to hire for the expansion.

Just to reiterate: The YMCA will expand way too quickly in an environment when every center is struggling. At best, schools like mine, that already cannot compete with the Y in terms of fundraising and advertising, will need to raise salaries just to keep staff and not have to compete in an even tighter labor market. This means that tuition will rise for families, especially those in the middle of the income ladder. More spots for those with wealth and those without, but the middle and lower middle class will be squeezed even worse. On top of that, without highly trained staff who know how to work with children with trauma, the Y will likely see incredibly high rates of teacher and student turnover, and all quality in all centers will start to suffer. Worst case scenario, the Y pushes centers like mine out of business, leaving a handful of larger early childhood ‘factories’, like Heartworks, to choose from.

It’s a lose-lose, and I think any gains for the few families who get the new spots will be eaten up by system destabilization and potential closure of other centers. Is the risk of destabilizing the system worth it? Or should the city take its time, actually work with early childhood educators, and make sure the centers that are currently open can improve on quality and teacher retention until we as a community figure out a sustainable plan?

The New Burlington Town Center Is Already Hurting Working Class Residents

I have been a very vocal critic of the Burlington Town Center for several years, mainly because the development relies on trickle down housing and trickle down economics to help low income residents. A recent article in VTDigger about UVM Medical Center’s expansion to the BTC, and the pressure and ‘passion’ Mayor Weinberger used to persuade them to move there, shows how the Mayor’s policies consistently hurt more residents, especially vulnerable ones, than help them.

Sources said the mayor lost his cool at the meeting and reminded hospital officials about the sweet deal they had for city services, though Weinberger said that argument was “not a major part of the conversation,” largely because the city’s hands are tied for another decade plus.

(As an aside, the Mayor’s ‘passion’, which has been described to me as temper tantrums, a good source tells me is a big reason why beloved former Library Director Rubi Simon decided to leaver her job and move out of state over a year ago.)

Now that the hospital will be paying an extra $1,00,000 a year, who will be paying for it? As the article makes clear, “patients”. It’s as if the mayor is so insulated from the yearly 8%-10% yearly increase in healthcare costs and premiums, that adding another $1,000,000 onto the backs of overworked Burlingtonians remains somehow overlooked. Not to mention that UVM Medical Center will likely use this as an excuse to continue paying MUCH less than the fair share of a $1 billion business should be paying for their fees in lieu of property taxes.

Who will benefit from the Burlington Town Center? Businesses on and around Church Street, landlords, hotels, and restaurants. Bringing people to the downtown core, even just for a few hours, means they will spend some amount of money there. The city will likely see a small increase in sales tax and alcohol tax revenue. Property taxes, however, will remain stagnant for 20 years, due to voters’ majority to support the TIF vote (supported almost unanimously by city councilors except Max Tracy). Instead of getting upto $1,000,000 a year in badly needed revenue, we will have to wait until the next generation is voting and having children.

Who will lose from the Burlington Town Center? Workers, especially low-wage workers, service workers, and now anyone who uses the UVM Medical Center (which is, essentially, everyone because they have a monopoly). Wages for service workers continue to remain stagnant, and likely the wealthy Church Street business owners, most of whom don’t live in Burlington, will end up pocketing any extra revenue.

“This decision is highly defensible” after all the factors are weighed, Weinberger said.

As long as those factors don’t include the vast majority of Burlington workers and service workers? Mayor Weinberger, the working class hero.

The Boves are Slumlords and the City Shouldn’t Work with Them

We, as a community, are at a crossroads. Recent policy decisions by our current administration continue to put the welfare of businesses and wealthy landlords over the needs of our residents. But we can change that! A case study can be the Boves family, especially local landlord Rick Boves, shows us how if we let developers and landlords build for the good of the city, even when they have caused serious damage to residents, we send out a message that large landlords can play by a different set of rules.

Folks who have never rented from the Boves may not know that, as landlords, they leave much to be desired. In fact, after researching articles for this post, I have zero qualms calling them slumlords. As a former renter, the apartment wasn’t kept nice, where mice and house centipedes were regular guests, where you could still see bits of carpet where the floor met the wall. It wasn’t fixed up from the previous tenants before I moved in, and it cost a decent deal more than it was worth. So it is fair to say I’m a bit biased about the Boves as landlords.

Fortunately for us (but not for their tenants), there is quite an extensive history of the Boves’ treatment of their tenants. In 2013, the city held the restaurants’ liquor license due to over 40 housing codes they refused to resolve at their crumbling George Street apartments. I used to live on Monroe street and had the misfortune of walking by these miserable apartments every day. I cannot imagine how miserable it felt to live inside them.

You’d think, after an article like that came out shaming the Boves, they would spend a few dollars to at least make their apartments look decent on the outside. I think any reasonable, thoughtful landlord would admit their mistakes and try to change. But the Boves made no such efforts. In May of this year, with another 38 code violations still pending, the Bove family decided to knock down the apartments to build newer, pricier apartments (and a hotel), which their current tenant certainly couldn’t afford.

In 4 years, they have received over 78 code violations. 

It gets worse. The renters in those apartments were all very low income residents, some of whom I’ve been told even worked for Boves. If this feels like a Charles Dickens novel, you wouldn’t be wrong. These folks lived in abysmal housing, where “violations including broken windows, leaky plumbing, a cracked toilet seat, failed caulking, defective cooking equipment, and cracked walls and holes in the ceiling” were left unfixed. These aren’t the sort of violations that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix – they are the type of reasonable fixes ANY landlord should make.

Instead of fixing up the apartments, the Bove family has moved their tenants to other buildings and are knocking it down to build luxury housing. What are the odds that the old tenants will be given affordable units?

Once, when Boves was cited for  ‘(L)live electrical wires dangling from a ceiling” at a North Williams apartment, the place was deemed uninhabiatble by Code Enforcement. What did the Boves have to say?

“You can write whatever you like. It doesn’t much matter to me.”

Now, the city, supported by Mayor Weinberger and by CEDO Director Noelle McKay, are considering selling a parking lot to Boves so he can build a boutique hotel. Land is a hot commodity in Burlington, and land this close to downtown, with support, could easily be converted into MUCH needed homeless or very low income housing – hell, it could and should be used to give Bove’s former tenants a decent place to live.

If this development happens, and if the city supports this development by selling off land, we will be sending a really terrible message, one where if you ignore our local laws, if you treat fellow human beings like shit, you will be rewarded.

We need to send our elected officials a message that this type of behavior should NOT be rewarded. Please email Director McKay, please email your city councilors and come to the city council meeting in a few weeks where councilors will vote on whether to sell land to Boves. They clearly do not deserve to be landlords, never mind to build new hotels or apartments in our beautiful city.

Burlington’s Early Childhood Education is in Crisis

As a preschool teacher, a graduate of the Snelling Center’s Early Childhood Leadership Institute and as a 2017 city council candidate who campaigned for universal publicly funded early childhood education, it is fair to say I’m pretty passionate about early childhood education, especially at the public policy level. Last year my school even wrote a letter to the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Early Childhood Education to discuss how much it costs to run a high quality top-rated program, how hard it is to run that program and how everyone in the system suffers due to a severe lack of funding.

While our own Mayor Weinberger promotes his market-based funding scheme for increasing early childhood education in the city, (twice now remaining relatively silent on the matter in non-election years), now is the time to discuss the many, many challenges Burlington’s early education community is facing, and how these challenges are bringing many centers onto the verge of a full blown crisis of care. Since last May, I have reached out to Weinberger’s office multiple times, but my request to meet with him about these issues have been repeatedly ignored. So I’m hoping that if I put my concerns out into the world, maybe just maybe this will make its way to our mayor and he will choose to listen.

Here are the biggest issues.

1) I take no joy in writing this, as I know firsthand the pressures of keeping a sometimes chaotic room full of children safe. That being said, there are real problems right now with several of the ‘high quality’ programs already operating in Burlington, where two centers have lost a STAR, one because children were left unattended and another because no one knew a child had wandered several blocks away from the school. Our STARS rating system does not take into account the work and cost needed to adequately support families with trauma, living through drug addiction, poverty, etc. A program can have 5-STARS but still be unprepared to work with the 70% of young Burlington children who come from homes making below 200% of the federal poverty level. Most, if not all, highly rated programs struggle acutely with these challenges.

2) Centers have real trouble retaining teachers, especially high quality teachers, and some centers have yearly turnover rates as high as 50%. That’s essentially every teacher leaving ever 2 years. Not only do centers struggle to build consistent teaching teams and a clear set of values and expectations, but children who see staff high turnover suffer academically. For children who already come from families where adults are constantly coming into and out of their lives, this can be incredibly stressful and triggering.

3) The typical early childhood educator works two jobs, because most of the best private early childhood educators in the city are paid less than $16 an hour, or $33,000 a year, while the city’s 2018 livable wage with health benefits is only a few thousand dollars less, at $29,619 a year, while neither come close to covering Burlington’s high costs of living. Teachers end up coming to school tired and short-tempered, either because they are burnt out from being tired/sick from overworking, stressed financially, or both. Public schools are incredibly attractive alternatives: while teachers in public schools put in more hours of work during the week, they are compensated, with the help of strong unions, upwards of 50%-70% more than private preschool teachers and early educators, to say nothing of the myriad vacations, health benefits, CTO time, tax breaks, loan forgiveness programs, and secondary education/professional development benefits. When even the Bagel Market on Shelburne Road offers a starting salary of $15 an hour, it’s hard to feel like your community values your work.

4) Most centers also have trouble retaining substitute teachers for when staff are sick, which is why one highly rated center last year had to close their doors for several days at a time due to lack of staff. Imagine what this does to overburdened staff, who may not use sick time even when they should so as to not burden their center. It happens a lot more than you think.

5) Schools often lack the necessary professional development/trainings to prepare teachers to work with children with high levels of stress and trauma due to generational poverty, drug addiction, learning delays, and English Language Learners. My school regularly enrolls ‘problem children’ from other highly rated centers in the area. These centers, which as our mayor will tell you, are a business that should make money, do not have the capacity to deal with these children (often class size-ratios, 8:1 children to teachers, are too high to effectively manage, never mind teach, but that’s the only way to try to break even as a business!) and often parents say they and their children feel much more respected and valued over their previous center.

6) School are ill-funded.  If not for the United Way, my own center would be tens of thousands of dollars in the red every year, just to cover operating expenses. Meanwhile, our executive director, with a masters’ degree and over two decades of experience, makes $45,000 a year. Neither staff nor lower-middle class and working class families win in this system.

7) To reiterate, early education will always be, and should be, a money losing business! It’s a terrible business to get in to because our community has recognized that education from K-12 is not a money-making business but rather a public good. I wish Mayor Weinberger agreed.

8) No centers really want to expand. It’s hard enough to make ends meet, keep children safe, hire competent staff, all the while according to the governor’s Blue Ribbon Commission,  a high-quailty toddler/infant slot costs over $35,000 a year. In most centers, the preschool classrooms ends up subsidizing infant and toddler classrooms, all of which are subsidized by charity, small grants, families (who can’t afford it), and most importantly ridiculously low paid teachers and staff.
Adding money to the system right now will be like building a new bedroom on a burning house. Let’s correct the problems current centers face BEFORE we add more capacity.

The Winners and Losers of Last Night’s Burlington Telecom Debacle

While lawsuits will likely abound (potentially from Citibank!), it seems like the untransparent, debacle of a process-to-end-all-of-the-city’s-failed-processes has finally come to an end. With that in mind, it’s time to see who succeeded and who lost during last night’s marathon city council meeting to decide the fate of Burlington Telecom.


The Winners:

Mayor Weinberger

It’s hard to believe the Mayor’s hand wasn’t involved in this process, especially since he is known to be very ‘demanding’ that councilors always support his positions. As someone who once considered privatizing Burlington Electric if the price was right, it looks like Weinberger’s ‘anything but the coop’ neoliberal attitude won the day. While it wasn’t a perfect win, voting on a handshake (the best of backroom politics), it should leave some wiggle room to sweeten the deal. Or screw taxpayers and customers over. Remember to vote on Town Meeting Day (for those who can make it to the polls even though you have to work, which definitely doesn’t hurt voter turnout)!

Schurz-ZRF

No one won more than Schurz. Will their owners continue to support conservative movements and their politicans? Will they sell in 5-10 years? Will they continue to say ‘the hell’ to net neutrality? One thing is for certain, the process allowed for them to be the perfect compromise that nobody but Kurt Wright wanted (I think. More on that later).

The Neutral:

Local Journalists

Staying up until 2am and writing great coverage about arguably the city’s greatest shit show means you should thank them and buy them coffee the next time you see them. I assume this is what they live for, so this is the closest any Burlington (Vermont?) citizen has for a win.

Councilors Tracy, Dieng, and Mason

The only three councilors who were entirely consistent throughout this whole process. Love them, hate them, disagree with them, but I have to respect them for sticking it out in the face of angry citizens, threats of lawsuits, and more. I want to give a special shoutout to Councilor Tracy for consistently calling out what a farce this whole process has been.

Councilor Shannon

In the face of an angry Councilor Hartnett, Shannon kept her cool. How anyone kept their cool is besides me, so half shout-out to anyone watching or in the room whose head did not explode. More on her later.

The Democratic Process

I know I’m an idealist but if there’s one sliver of light, it’s that the whole city and state could see how inadequate our city council positions are. Councilors are expected to work full time jobs while also doing full time work as an elected representative. It may work during the day-to-day, but it’s clearly inadequate for huge issues such as these.

It’s time we rethink how we vote and who perennially ends up running (and winning and keeping and keeping) local office, so that folks who have been outside the system for far too long, particularly those who are not from the professional classes or from economic privilege, can successfully run. May I suggest publicly financed elections and councilor pay equal to 40 hours a week of minimum wage or ‘livable wage’?

The Losers:

Burlington Citizens and BT Subscribers
No question we all lost this one. As a vocal coop supporter, I’d much rather have Ting than Schurz (for the reasons mentioned above, and others), and if I realized the city would finally employ IRV, I would have urged my city councilors to support Ting over Schurz). Schurz-ZRF seems like the riskiest parts of Ting (corporate-ness and no actual local presence) with the riskiest parts of KBTL (folks who seem fairly new to the whole telecom business).

Every non-jounalist on #btvcc Twitter

Ting supporters found KBTL supporters to be condescending and KBTL supporters found Ting supporters to be condescending. But in the end, you all lost, since you’re all condescending, including me. No one who regularly tweets #btvcc won, and that includes me, who contributed to this grossness early on. I’m just glad I finally quit the toxicity that has become Burlington political Twitter.

Councilor Knodell and Hartnett

I look like an idiot for defending them in comment sections, where folks claimed their support of KBTL was disingenuous. Frankly from the way voting happened, it certainly looks like they proved me wrong. Whether it’s political maneuvering at its worse or whether it just looks like it, neither one makes them look good.

Other Councilors not named Tracy, Dieng, or Mason. 

This looks so bad. So so bad. Why fight so hard for KBTL or Ting and then give in to arguably the worst of the three options? What was gained from angering nearly every voter? Why does it always happen that folks on the left compromise hard while those in the middle/right get most of what they want? I’d love to know what went through anyone’s mind, on any side, who voted for Schurz. Regardless, no one other councilors can claim to have a shred of supporting transparency (especially Hartnett who whole-heartedly endorsed the final vote).

Councilor Shannon

While it was great to see Councilor Shannon persevere through Hartnett’s rude interruptions, it was incredibly disingenuous of her to imply her vote and final speech was not about political theater like her peers. In fact, her voting history and public comments regarding BT show a regular disregard of transparency when the ends meet her needs.

Councilor Shannon voted for the BT Advisory Board to increase transparency in the process, but then largely ignored results of their citizen survey. When Miro was accused of manipulating the BT voting process, or when the city’s consultant had a direct financial involvement in the decision-making process, Shannon took Weinberger’s side and remained silent, respectively. And we certainly should remember the VERY political decision in 2009 to rush the council vote (in the middle of the financial crises) to not refinance BT, which set us up on the path to where we are today. No political points awarded for only calling out bullshit when it’s your political opponents.

Transparency
There have been complaints since the beginning of the BT process that Mayor Weinberger has not been transparent with councilors, that councilors have not been transparent with their constituents, and then last night’s backroom deal really sealed the deal. Do you remember when Weinberger ran on the platform of transparency? It’s like Burlington Telecom is a blackhole that sucks up integrity and honesty. I’m sure the city will release very useful data on this though.