vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

11.05.2007

Election Day thoughts

Most of us here in Vermont will pass Election Day tomorrow without any voting to think about. (Those of you in the Essex, Essex Junction, Westford school district are among the exceptions).

The Snelling Center for Government is offering the hard-core politicos a chance to do something Election Day-like anyway. The center will release results Tuesday night of a poll that looks at whether Vermonters are inclined to increase term lengths for Governor, other constitutional offices and the Legislature.

The poll results come in conjunction with a debate on the subject with
former Gov. Madeleine Kunin and UVM Professor Frank Bryan. That's at 7 p.m. in the Montpelier Room of the Capitol Plaza Hotel in Montpelier, with a response panel including Martha Abbott, co-chair of the Vermont Progressive Party, Ian Carleton, chair of the Vermont Democratic Party and Rob Roper, chair of the Vermont Republican Party.

The Snelling Center has taken on this issue of whether the state should pass a constitutional amendment changing the term limits. Vermont is one of only two states that still has the two year governor's term.

Whether this issue is going anywhere in the Legislature, I have my doubts. There is this irreconcilable stumbling block: Is the Legislature willing to expand the governor's term without also expanding legislators' terms? Would the House stand by while the Senate's terms were increased? Would the public stand by while any of them are increased?

Would any term increases give us better government, which after all should be the only barometer? There are arguments that it would - a four-year governor might have more time to sink his/her teeth into planning? Might be less inclined to attend every ribbon cutting out there. And of course there are arguments against it - Vermonters wouldn't have their say every two years. If we are the sort that is disinclined to vote out incumbents, would a four-year term solidify incumbency even more?

All those questions and more.

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 12:18 PM |

Comments:

Say NO to 4 year terms.

Our elected officials should be kept on as short a leash as possible.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:08 PM, November 05, 2007

Another example of Montpelier wasting its time on irrelevant issues - the politicians conniving with each other to extend their terms without addressing taxes, health care costs, deteriorating roads and bridges, and all the other issues facing the state.

The two-year term serves Vermont well. We don't need a legislature or a governor that are even less accountable than they are now. A four-year term will make it much harder to throw the bums out.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:13 PM, November 05, 2007

Vermont High-Level Government Bloat (2 in series)

Michael Bertrand (ADMIN)-- $97,344
Rob Hofmann (DOC) -- $103,729
George Crombie (ANR) -- $109,990
Cynthia Laware (AHS) -- $128,169
Stephen Dale (DCF)-- $106,017
Roger Allbee (AGR) -- $115,148
Gerry Myers (BGS) -- $94,057
Paul Thabault (BISHCA) -- $101,108
Patrick Flood (DAIL) -- $98,009
Richard Cate (Ed) -- $126,921
Jeff Wennberg (DEC) -- $89,398
Neale Lunderville (AOT) - $121,700
Sharon Moffate (DOH) -- $104,220
David Herlihy (HR) -- $83,366
Thomas Murray (DII) -- $90,396
P. Moulton Powden -- $98,820

And for average Vermont workers?

Average salary for:

corrections officer -- $28,000
parole officer -- $30,000
state trooper -- $35,000
dmv employee -- $29,000
caseworker -- $30,000

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:13 PM, November 05, 2007

Too bad the Snelling Center didn't address some related issues.

For example, many bemoan the perceived ineffectiveness of the legislature, but few acknowledge their built-in handicaps.

First, the Leg. works part-time. Second, they are poorly paid. Third, they have very little staff.

Other the small and terribly overworked staffs of the Joint Fiscal Office and the Legislative Counsel, reps & senators have no staff. So when they need to review policies, programs, and proposals, they are at a distinct disadvantage in discussions with the administration (which has thousands of workers and controls the flow of information).

Personally, I'm less interested in the length of the terms, than in whether legislators have the tools necessary to do good work.

The idea of a part-time citizen legislature may have outlived its usefulness. They are a co-equal branch of government charged with making policy for a $4 billion enterprise. They need help.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:16 PM, November 05, 2007

You make some great points, Doug.
On the other hand, I worry about our local legislators becoming more like professional pols.
The more of their income comes from Montpelier, the more time they spend there, the less tied they are to their own town or county.
I agree that the executive branch has grown disproportionately powerful. I'm just can't see an easy solution. We can easily give the leg more staff, more of their own resources ... that's great. But should we raise legislative salaries Should there be more study committees that keep legislators in Montpellier year-round? I don't like that so much.
These folks need to stay tied to their neighbors. They need to stay in touch with what it means to make a living in rural Vermont.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:37 PM, November 05, 2007

All 6 New England states, and New York, have 2-year terms for all their legislators. What is the argument for extending legislative terms to 4 years when 2 years seems to work for all the neighboring states? 4 year terms would mean more professional legislators and the legislature being even more out of touch than it is today.

Jim Douglas would cut ribbons every day of his term whether it's 2 years or 4 years.

This issue is dead. The voters would never go for 4-year terms for legislators, and the legislature won't vote for a 4-year term for governor unless their own terms are also 4 years.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:43 PM, November 05, 2007

"All 6 New England states, and New York, have 2-year terms for all their legislators."

First, there are only FIVE other New England states.

Second, just because other states do it, doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. I don't want Vermont to be run like other states. I want Vermont to be run better.

Third, I don't think that the FIVE other NE states all have citizen legislatures ... in other words, the disparity in power between the leg and the chief executive is not as great because the legislature is filled with professional pols who make a good deal of money from their political offices.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:07 PM, November 05, 2007

You know, I read that first point again ... and I see that you didn't say "other" NE states at all ... sorry about that. My mistake.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:08 PM, November 05, 2007

Hey Doug,

How in the world did the Current Use Program task force calculate the last column (net if 10 of the 100 acres are developed)in table #4? For the life of me, I can't figure what was or wasn't included. As far as I can tell, they didn't include the change tax on the remaining 90 acres in the column, but did include the tax savings for all 100 acres. It looks to be (taxes saved on all 100)-(use change penalty on 10).

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:22 PM, November 05, 2007

Not sure where this question came from (I did not work on this project) but it appears you are correct. The owner receives the tax savings on the entire parcel for five years but only pays the tax on the 10 acres developed after year five.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:15 PM, November 05, 2007

Terri

The main page is not registering the number of comments for this item.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:18 PM, November 05, 2007

I like the idea of extending the term to 4 years to end this continous campaigning. I like the idea more of getting rid of this citizen legislature. They have no wherewithal to solve real problems. They are clearly not qualified to hold a position of responsibility like this and are clearly dependent on doing what is told to them by a handful of lobbyist and politican professionals.

In VT we have professional standards for auctioneers, beauticians and tatto artists but we are quite content with legislators with no professional qualifications.

If we ever want to make progress as a state and be viewed seriously, change the term, pay competitive wages, seek qualified professionals and give them the tools to do their jobs.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:04 AM, November 06, 2007

"Average salary for:

corrections officer -- $28,000
parole officer -- $30,000
state trooper -- $35,000
dmv employee -- $29,000
caseworker -- $30,000"

A couple thoughts come to mind
1. Salaries are a function of the market. This is what agencies offer and, what a surprise, people willingly apply for and accept jobs at these rates. I don't think anyone forces people in these jobs.

2. If one of these is your job, you clearly must have known the pay before you trained for, applied for and took the job. Why would you have done that when clearly there are better earning opportunities available? It was your call.

3. Stop complaining. Take some initiative. Get re-trained for a new career....move to a location where agencies pay more than VT...show some drive to get promoted to a higher paying job.

You sound like a victim. The last I heard job pay and raises were a function of merit, not an entitlement.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:15 AM, November 06, 2007

"Hey Doug,

How in the world did the Current Use Program task force calculate the last column (net if 10 of the 100 acres are developed)in table #4?"

I am having trouble with my algebra assignment. Can you also look at my word problems?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:18 AM, November 06, 2007

I think your problems go way beyond algebra.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:59 AM, November 06, 2007

We need a new Speaker - ASAP.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:11 AM, November 06, 2007

"You sound like a victim. The last I heard job pay and raises were a function of merit, not an entitlement."

This post brought to you by the Committee to Re-elect Jim Douglas. They would have added "Get a real job you bum," but HR Guru McIntire labeled it "not very Vermont like."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:15 AM, November 06, 2007

"Not sure where this question came from (I did not work on this project) but it appears you are correct. The owner receives the tax savings on the entire parcel for five years but only pays the tax on the 10 acres developed after year five."

thanks,

I just thought you might know how this was calculated. I sure can't figure it out and can't make the numbers work exactly for any of the values in that column.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:03 AM, November 06, 2007

More young people sticking around Vermont, study suggests
Tuesday November 6, 2007
DURHAM, N.H. (AP)

Oh no!!! One less scare tactic for Chicken Little Gov. Doesless.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:49 AM, November 06, 2007

"Salaries are a function of the market. This is what agencies offer and, what a surprise, people willingly apply for and accept jobs at these rates."

Actually, people don't apply for jobs like Corrections Officer in VT. That's why we've had chronic understaffing in facilities across the state. I guess $28,000 isn't worth the hassle of getting feces thrown at you on a regular basis. Might be why Chittenden Regional has a 90% turnover rate.

We have an obligation as a state to pay our workers a livable wage. Especially when commissioners are making well in excess of $100,000. And spare me the garbage that we need to offer these high salaries to attract qualified professionals in those positions. What qualifications did Neale Lunderville have to be AOT Secretary? (besides being Douglas' campaign manager)

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:54 AM, November 06, 2007

Wow, Gov DoesLess attitude of GOP scare tactics inc. "doom & gloom" is falling apart!

Young adults are actually staying here or moving here...

There goes a campaign issue!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:58 AM, November 06, 2007

I think the demographic issue was exaggerated from the beginning (it's nothing new & many other states have a similar problem).

Interestingly, there is a simple way for employers to attract / retain good young workers: pay them more.

While the state should devote more resources to workforce education & training, it's interesting that the first response from some quarters was to assume that the state has to solve the problem. What about the market? Isn't that what they preach to us all the time?

Funny how some believe gov't. "interference" in the market is bad when we set minimum wages but good when we use taxpayer funds to subsidize working training. It's all so confusing.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:36 PM, November 06, 2007

Good points Mr. Hoffer!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:42 PM, November 06, 2007

More young people staying in Vermont? DUH! WHAT KIND OF YOUNG PEOPLE are staying? From what I see, more and more young girls can hardly wait to get knocked up so they can start living on welfare at a young age. More kids, more money! No one has to work in Vermont anymore. Once you learn the "system" Montpelier will take care of you forever! Vermont has been a welfare magnet since the days of Kunin and Wright.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:53 PM, November 06, 2007

Must be all those young people finally realized it wasn't any better outside of Vermont and decided to come back.

Can't tell them young'uns anything...

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:57 PM, November 06, 2007

Vermont has got to get off the welfare train.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:13 PM, November 06, 2007

Does that include corporate welfare?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:15 PM, November 06, 2007

Must be the young'uns found that welfare wasn't quite a "right" in other states!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:15 PM, November 06, 2007

So they leave for jobs and return for welfare?

which way do you want it?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:06 PM, November 06, 2007

Does that include corporate welfare?

..

Yes

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:16 PM, November 06, 2007

"We have an obligation as a state to pay our workers a livable wage."

Huh? As a taxpayer, I hope the state will pay the least it can get away with, which will probably be a little less than a comparable job in the private sector, since the state job has more security.

In my view, the state's obligation should be to keep its expenses as low as possible.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:24 PM, November 06, 2007

"Anonymous said...
More young people sticking around Vermont, study suggests
Tuesday November 6, 2007
DURHAM, N.H. (AP)

Oh no!!! One less scare tactic for Chicken Little Gov. Doesless."

Umm ... sorry to inform you, but you're dead wrong. You have to read a little past the headline; the story was actually about NH and was given a quick re-write to localize it to Vermont.

According to the study, Vermont's population growth from 2000 to 2006 was a total of about 15,000 (estimated). The 2.5 percent increase of total population put us at 39th out of 50 states.

Unfortunately, in the 25-34 year old age group, from 2000 to 2004, Vermont lost about 5,000, or 6.7 percent of that group. And the 2006 estimate for that group in Vermont is 11.5 percent of our population: Dead last, tied with Maine.

Guess it really is a problem, huh?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:16 PM, November 06, 2007

Interesting. So you think government shouldn't try to get the best workers possible?

And while we're keeping expenses low, we can expect morale in the workplace to be lousy. That should really help productivity.

And what about the jobs in government for which there are few if any private sector counterparts? Can't think of any private sector firefighters. And would you really say security guards are comparable to cops?

And what if the public sector jobs paid so little that a bunch of workers qualified for public assistance (as is the case in much of the private sector)? Now that would be cost-effective.

And have you considered the lost tax revenue from lower wages? And the reduced buying power? Yes, they actually spend their money in the economy just like you.

Note: Some might say, hey, if I get to keep the money, I'll just spend more so it would be a wash. But the savings from lower wages for a few thousand workers would be distributed in the same manner as its collected. That is, much of the benefit would go to the wealthy so the average savings for the 225,000 filers that earn less than $60,000 would be peanuts. On the other hand, the reduced earnings for the workers might mean a lot in their lives.

And if we extend your "logic", we should eliminate the pension benefits, health care coverage, and relative job security for public employees because we could save so much money. Heck, that's what the private sector is doing.

But if we did these things, why would young people ever enter public service? And if they didn't, that would mean even more would leave VT for greener pastures.

And finally, as a very large player in the labor market, the public sector actually helps set wages for comparable workers in the private sector. If we lowered wages for government workers, it might well result in slower wage growth for many in the private sector.

So while I sympathize with your desire to hold down taxes, I'm not sure lower wages is the way to go.

Indeed, you could argue that higher wages would attract even better workers who would be more productive and efficient -- which would save money in the long run.

In the end, the state has two primary responsibilities. One is to keep expenses down. The other is to provide quality services; and we should always insist on that. But you can't just look at one side of the equation.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:16 PM, November 06, 2007

If the government can get a firefighter who meets the requirements for the job for a salary of x and roughly the same firefighter for xxx, it has an absolute obligation to pay x and not xxx.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:58 PM, November 06, 2007

This blog is getting ridiculous. Posts are good, but the comments appear to be one paid staffer from the VT Democratic Party, an unpaid Republican with way too much time on his hands, and Doug Hoffer - who apparently doesn't have any clients other than the VT Legislature and thus has time to hang out here all day (when he isn't hanging out on other blogs). BORING.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:09 AM, November 07, 2007

I am not a Republican or a Democrat.
It is great to be able to sound off somewhere.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:07 AM, November 07, 2007

It's so BORING that you post the same comment over and over again and then check the blog eight times a day.

Seriously, if you're bored, go back to your porn website.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:15 AM, November 07, 2007

Look who is talking.............

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:14 PM, November 07, 2007

I want good cops and good teachers. As long as they are evaluated well and retain their jobs based on performance, I am happy to pay the necessary wages to get good people.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:39 PM, November 07, 2007

I want good people and we should be willing to pay for them but we
also need good leadership and we are not getting it in the legislature. We need a change and soon.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:19 PM, November 07, 2007

To: Current Use guy

Good question re. Table 4. I checked the report again and spoke with one of the authors.

The 1st year savings is based on the fair market value (FMV) in year one. But the text explains that they assume the FMV increases 7% per year, which means that the annual savings increases at the same rate. So when you do that (plus add the assumed 3% compounded interest on the savings), the cumulative savings in year five is just what they said.

So multiply that times 10 (acres) and subtract the land use change tax times 10 (acres) and it equals the net in the final column.

Once you pointed it out, it confused me too. Nice to solve the puzzle.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:42 PM, November 07, 2007

Current Use guy: Obviously, the formula should be savings per acre times 100 (not 10) minus the land use change tax times 10.

Sorry

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:30 AM, November 08, 2007

Doug,

Thanks for looking. I understand that FMV was at 7% and savings at 3%. I assume that the data under the "Year 5" heading includes the 3% and 7% increases. It indicates it does for the tax savings. But, take Addison for example:

Cululative savings = $89
FMV per acre $1157
Land Uuse Change Tax per acre=$231
Their column 5 result = $6631

100*$89-10*$231=$8900-$2310=$6590

Now $6590 does not equal the $6631 that is reported in the column. I assume that this is because they rounded off the tables entries to the nearest whole dollar.

But, more importantly, why is not the land use change tax for the remaining 90 acres included in the column?

The column includes the taxes saved (100*$89) from all the land enrolled, but not the lien that exists on all land enrolled. How does one make the statement that "net" is only represented by tax savings and not debt?

The lien on the reamining 90 acres is 90*$231=$20790. A true reprentation of "net" must include this value, especially if it also includes the $8900 tax savings.

Disredarding rounding, the last column in table 4 should either be:

1) incorporate all gains/losses on all acreage

100*$89-10*$231-90*$231=
$8900-$2310-$20790=-$14200

or

2) evaluate gains/losses just upon the 10 acres

10*$89-10*$231=$890-$2310=-$1420

Either way, both minux $1420 and minus $14200 are a far cry from the $6631 gain that the study advertises for "net".

I'm baffled on how they can make the statement that there is a gain based on the tax savings upon the whole 100 acres and not include the lien that would still exist upon the whole 100 acres.

btw, I know you are not the author and I'm not directing this rant at you. I guess I'm just stunned that this will be put in front of the legislature.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:31 AM, November 08, 2007

There is no leadership in the legislature.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:50 PM, November 08, 2007

"But, more importantly, why is not the land use change tax for the remaining 90 acres included in the column?"

It appears that they assume the remaining 90 acres will never be developed. Therefore, there will be no additional land use change tax liability and no "lien" on the remaining acreage.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:05 PM, November 08, 2007

Apparently that is the case.

But that assumption sure doesn't make sense to me and I don't think its appropriate when the data is being used to argue that the penalty is too low.

anyway, thanks for the input

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:40 PM, November 08, 2007

I think Vermont just needs new fresh leadership at every level.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:12 PM, November 09, 2007

Bring it on!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:40 PM, November 11, 2007

TJ Donovan for Attorney General.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:40 PM, November 11, 2007