burlingtonfreepress.com

Sponsored by:

vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

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


11.14.2007

 

Less random, more filling

Special thanks to the anonymous who noted on the last posting, "This is kind of random." Well yeah, that is pretty much what blogging is, sort of random.

Pardonez-moi for the digression into random matter. On to matters less "random."

Twelve Democratic and one Progressive members of the Legislature have written to Gov. Jim Douglas and Attorney General Bill Sorrell seeking a reversal on the governor's call for marijuana busts from state law enforcement agencies in Windsor County to be handled by the AG's office. This all came as a result of State's Attorney Bobby Sand's decision to allow a Windsor County lawyer busted with 2.5 pounds of pot to go through court diversion. (Signers of letters are: Sens. Campbell and McCormack, Reps. Cheney, Emmons, Martin, Mitchell, Pellett, Sweaney, Clarkson, Haas, Masland, Ojibway, Shand).

The legislators are arguing that Douglas is interfering with local government. "The voters of Windsor County have the right to have our local elections respected," the letter to Douglas says.

They explicitly say, "We are not addressing suggested reforms to Vermont's drug laws." But that is the backdrop of this issue. Is marijuana a drug that Vermont considers a serious infraction or not?

In the letter to Sorrell, legislators get at that issue:

"Finally, we are dismayed by the governor's apparent lack of a sense of
proportion. Vermont has recently experienced its worst week of
violent crime in our history. Our larger towns are beset by gang
activity, the effects of which are spreading to our rural communities. Our
correctional facilities are overcrowded and understaffed. It is preposterous
that the governor would choose to focus, not on these problems, but on the
routine decision to send a nonviolent first-time offender to Court Diversion. We
urge you to distance yourself from so irresponsible and distorted a
position."

Yesterday, the Supreme Court justices came before the Legislature's Joint Fiscal Committee to talk about their strained financial situation, largely due to underfunding of employee pay across state government. Chief Justice Paul Reiber told legislators that the state is underfunding the court system it has chosen to have. The discussion evolved into one about the notion of taking a look at the finances of the overall justice system - cops, courts, prosecutors, defenders, prisons, probation - and how the interact.

In that realm, is it worth considering downgrading certain crimes because the state simply can't afford to prosecute them? Or are Democrats setting themselves up for another smackdown on this one? How easy will it be for Republicans to suggest Democrats are getting soft on crime?

- Terri Hallenbeck

Comments:
Democrats can't handle financial
decisions so less criminal justice issues.
 
Douglas underfunded employee pay? That's fiscally reponsible? How does this guy get away with this crap? Isn't Democratic Senator Susan "Which Way Is The Wind Blowing Today" Bartlett supposed to monitor this stuff? What about that little Heath woman from Burlington? Why isn't she asking for full funding? Maybe it is time to clear house (and senate). It's becoming as bad as Washington in Vermont. Dems stand by twindling their thumbs while GOP runs roughshod. F-ing Sad!
 
We need to close all of the schools and use the money we'd save to build more prisons.

If half of Vermonters are not in prison, we aren't doing enough to eliminate crime.
 
The Chief Justice should be able to submit the budget request for the judicial branch directly to the Legislature without having to go through the Governor's office.

Isn't it unconstitutional for the executive branch to tell an independent judicial branch how much they should or shouldn't be able to spend?
 
No because even though the legislature sets the budget, the Governor controls the comissioners and department heads who are in control of doleing out the cash.

So the Governor ultimately has the final say in all spending decisions.
 
Funny how the folks over at GMD are ripped that no Republicans signed onto the letter send by Windsor County legislators. I wonder if anyone at GMD bothered to ask whether the Republicans were even asked to sign onto the letter.

It raises an important question about the motives of the letter writers.

Were they hoping to raise a substantive issue to the Governor? Or just looking to score some political points? The answer depends on whether they asked Republican members to sign the letter.
 
Do you really think this guy avoided jail time for any reason other than the fact he was a local lawyer? If this was some local yahoo or worse yet some flatlander, they would be sitting in jail today.

It's partisan and clear favoritism on the part of the Windsor County state attorney. Of all people an attorney should know that breaking the law has consequences and expect to be held to a higher standard.

What a great example being set for your kids to see. In Chittenden County our judges let child molesters off with a slap on the wrist and now this. Clearly there is a lack of moral value.
 
Wait till Bill O'Reilly picks this up.
 
The state needs to be doing more to follow up on sex offenders out on probation and parole. This morning the Burlington police arrested a man who had exposed himself to two girls waiting for the school bus on North Avenue. The man fits the description of someone who was reported to be doing the same sort of thing in St Albans earlier this week. Turns out the man has a previous conviction for exposing himself and is now on prison furlough. The state needs to be doing more to treat people like this even if it means keeping them in jail for their full sentences. Sex offenders should be a much higher priority than marijuana users.
 
We have a Court administrator (under oath to uphold our laws) giving favors to another Court administrator, also under oath. 2 1/2 pounds of pot and 32 plants and Sands winks his eye and sends the part-time judge to Diversion. The rest of us poor saps would be behind bars. Campbell/McCormack etal are just trying to make political points by shifting the focus to Douglas when the real culprit here is Martha Davis and Bobby Sands
 
"Campbell/McCormack etal are just trying to make political points by shifting the focus to Douglas when the real culprit here is Martha Davis and Bobby Sands"

Thank you...a voice of common sense. I too find it amazing there isn't a cry of outrage against these guys. I could understand a rationalizing a small quantity but 2 1/2 lbs seems a whole lot more than something for personal use. Who in Windsor County is asking the real question?
 
"The state needs to be doing more to treat people like this even if it means keeping them in jail for their full sentences."

Keep dreaming. Douglas said he isn't going to fill the positions of people who retire from P&P or any other state agency. It's actually going to get worse in Vermont, not only in P&P but also if you're trying to find a job, manage your family, drive on roads not littered with potholes, etc. Scary.
 
FACT: Plain & Simple!

Jim Douglas' fiscal policies and underpaying the pay act for state employees are actually causing Vermonters to be less safe!

Oh, Douglas will tell you he is not cutting any positions in corrections -- BUT he is and has been cutting (or holding vacant) Probation & Parole positions who oversee all the furloughees the Douglas Admin is releasing to save money!

King Douglas is being unmasked for his irresponsible fiscal policies of dealing with this yeaar only - "we'll deal with next year- next year" attitude!!!!
 
You all need to light up a spliff and chill out.
 
Yeah! The press is completely ignoring the negative implications of Douglas's declaration not to fill the positions of state employees who leave, not only for retirement, but for any other reason as well. P&P, Corrections, Transportation, Employment and Training, DMV, mental health, you name it, services WILL be reduced.

Why isn't the press requesting every copy of a private state contract and reporting on where Douglas is spending Vermonters' money? I mean, we don't even know if the numbers the state threw out about rising state employment are correct. We only have Douglas's numbers to rely on.

Makes me sick how they report only what Mike Smith pumps out in a memorandum. Like he's the end all. It's kind of like how the national press used to treat Cheney. Thank God they finally woke up (not entirely though).
 
Gov Douglas' Jobs Program,
or - Douglas Re-election Team!

Gov Douglas(ADM)-- $150,051
Mike Smith (ADM)-- $135,803
Tim Hayward (ADM)-- $129,251
Neale Lunderville(AOT)-- $121,700
Michael Bertrand (ADMIN)-- $97,344
Betsy Bishop (ADM)-- $93,974
Susanne Young (ADM)-- $93,974
Linda McIntire (ADM)-- $90,396

Neal left state gov't for a Boston lobbying job - then came back when Gov DoesLess offered him a FT job at more money than he when he left, kissing up to Sen Mazza to make sure Mazza does whatever the Governor wants - no questions asked!
==================================

Of course, average Vermont state workers continue to be underpaid!

Average salary for:

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

Then of course there are the Governor's appointees - Secretaries and Commissioners

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
Sharon Moffate (DOH) -- $104,220
David Herlihy (HR) -- $83,366
Thomas Murray (DII) -- $90,396
P. Moulton Powden -- $98,820

And, of course, there are the 14-16 PR staff members making a combined total of approx $800,000.

Now, remind me of where the waste in Gov't workers is?

I think it is not the front line workers serving Vermonters - but rather the back room political hacks serving Gov DoesLess.
 
"dmv employee -- $29,000"

Have you been to the DMV lately?

There is a reason why those people don't work in the private sector. They are slow, rude, and unhelpful. "Please" and "Thank You" are replaced by "grunt" and "groan".

If you expect these people to earn more money, you should expect that they have basic customer service skills and a little motivation.

Would you want a DMV employee as Governor?
 
"Would you want a DMV employee as Governor?"

Beats the hell out of the pansy we have in there now.
 
A lot of numbers with no context don't mean squat. How do these salaries compare to equivalent positions in other states' administrations?
 
""Would you want a DMV employee as Governor?"

Beats the hell out of the pansy we have in there now."

Good. I vote for you.
 
"A lot of numbers with no context don't mean squat. How do these salaries compare to equivalent positions in other states' administrations?"

Exactly.

And all the people who are whining about differential in pay between state executive managerial positions and low-level positions -- were they doing the same bellyaching when Dean was Gov? I don't recall it.
 
What happened to the original thread? The one about an official of the court giving another official of the court a slap on the wrist. What about the Windsor 13 trying to grab headlines?
 
By the way, many of the so-called PR hack positions are union jobs.
 
And most of those starting salaries don't include the significant amount of overtime union employees can get and the value of the most best benefit/paid vacation package in Vermont.
 
Looks like Team Douglas has started to sound their voices about this employee thread. They always pour it on a little too thick, a little too fast. Like little kids. Wah, wah. Big bad unions. Wah, no one should get to go home at night or get paid a fair wage for a day's work. I have to kiss ass all day. Why don't these union people have to. Wah. Wah.
 
"By the way, many of the so-called PR hack positions are union jobs."

You should refrain from calling them hacks. They hate that. Hurts the ego, you know.

Oh, I don't think many are in the union. A few, maybe, but not many.
 
Back to the original thread. I think the most troublesome outcome is what the poster who suggested getting back on point raised: That favoritism played a role in the prosecutor's decision to refer a felony marijuana case to Diversion.

It is hard to imagine another citizen, similarly situated but not an attorney and part-time judge, being referred to Diversion for such a large amount of marijuana. Regardless of your stance on marijuana's legality or harm to society, anyone should be worried about the potential impact on the justice system of the perception of favoritism.

If average citizens watching this case reach the conclusion that the "elite" -- those who are connected or wield power/wealth -- are subject to a different standard of justice than they are, public confidence in the system is eroded.

If Sand can point to other multiple-pound possession cases he's referred to Diversion that would help bolster his position, but absent that it's hard not to reach the conclusion that the combination of his personal opposition to the current marijuana laws and his personal knowledge of the defendant and her status led to an outcome much different than the average defendant would expect.

If he wanted to plea bargain it down to a misdemeanor with no jail time, I don't think people would mind. But for the facts in this case, it seems clear he went well beyond prosecutorial discretion and showed favoritism. And if the public perceives that justice isn't truly blind, then all of society suffers.
 
1. Jim Douglas supported legalization of marijuana in Vermont years ago. And he signed a medical marijuana bill in Vermont even though the federal government opposed it (local control matters?).

2. Now he tries to usurp the authority of the local, elected states attorney.

3. He tells law enforcement to bypass the local states attorney on marijuana (not crack, heroin, crystal meth, cocaine).

4. As Douglas knows, many people get court diversion for possession of cocaine or heroin to say nothing of marijuana. Many get court diversion for much more serious crimes such as burglaries, domestic violence or driving while intoxicated. For example, everyone in the drug court programs are in a court diversion program that will drop their criminal charges at the end of the process. All of them have done much more than possessed marijuana.

I can only conclude that this is political grandstanding and/or an attempt to punish the states attorney's courageous efforts to start a discussion about our current harmful and counterproductive approach to drugs (aka attempting to chill future attempts by elected officials to question the status quo on drug policy).

I'm disappointed that the Vermont attorney general and the other local attorneys general are not opposing this cynical, political power grab by the governor. Like Bush, Douglas is interfering with the independence of the attorney general system in a political way.

What's even worse, he is interfering in a particular case. This is not acceptable.

If voters don't like the local attorney general's decisions, they can vote him out. It's not Douglas' place to override the locally elected attorney general.

As far as the weak, pathetic argument that we need consistency in law enforcement from county to county on marijuana possession --who are they kidding?

First, hundreds of thousands of Vermonters have possessed marijuana and only a small fraction have been prosecuted. We could not possibly afford to enforce our marijuana possession law in anything more than a token, symbolic and unfair way (as we do now).

Second, our criminal justice system lacks consistency across the board. It's disingenuous to pretend that this case is a deviation from a consistent system resulting in such an aberration that the governor's intervention is warranted.

We don't have consistency between or among, police officers, states attorneys, assistant states attorneys, judges or probation officers. As a matter of fact, individual states attorneys and judges are not consistent from case to case with themselves! And marijuana use is commonly tolerated by many probation officers and judges who recognize this is not an area worthy of their focus. It's only worthy of Douglas' focus now because he's playing politics again.

Those of you who are saying that the woman in this case is only getting diversion because she is an attorney/judge have it backwards. Court diversion is commonly given to people who have committed much more serious offenses and who are much greater risks to the community. The woman in this case is getting attention from the governor because she is an attorney/judge and the governor spots an opportunity for publicity and political positioning to the detriment of an opponent. She is a person, and not a vehicle for the governor or anyone else to "send a message."

And notice, Attorney General Sorrel described the amount of pot in question as "enough to keep the average fraternity happy for a year" with some leftover. If he sees this case as so serious why is he joking about it? And are we supposed to fear the "average fraternity" as a threat to our public safety?

Hundreds of thousands of Vermonters and millions of Americans have possessed and smoked marijuana without seriously harming themselves or anyone else. Yet sadly a few have their lives destroyed by criminal prosecution.

I don't use marijuana or any other drug except alcohol in moderation. This isn't "my fight" in that sense. But I do pay taxes, and I do care about the people around me who are hurt by the Jim Douglas's of the world.
 
"I can only conclude that this is political grandstanding and/or an attempt to punish the states attorney's courageous efforts to start a discussion about our current harmful and counterproductive approach to drugs (aka attempting to chill future attempts by elected officials to question the status quo on drug policy)."

Nice try but that is not the state attorney's job. The Legislature enacts law. The Judicial branch enforces it. It's a basic (constitutional)requirement of the job.

If Sands wants to be a lobbyist/activist, good for him...do it, but not as a State Attorney.

He should go and as it goes with the "Windsor 13", if they firmly believe in their convictions, sponser legislation like they are supposed to as a responsible legislature, let your constituency decide if they then support you and stop hiding behind some attorney.
 
I guess we know what the legislature will be doing this session --

Bong Hits in the Judiciary Committee!
 
Bong hits for Symington!
 
Don't "Bogart" that joint my friend, pass it over to me
 
Dims/Progs are traditionally soft on criminals because they still believe that anyone can be rehabilitated, that is as long as they are in THEIR neighborhood.
 
Why is it when the Dems say they want to see programs and such to help these offenders become productive citizens, they are attacked for being soft on crime?

Conservatives and GOP members who say they want to be tough on crime and fiscally conservative have certainly not meshed the 2 ideas together.

It currently costs some $40,000 per male inmate, and some $70,000 per female inmate.

Vermont now spends some $130 million on Corrections while only spending about $80 million on Higher Ed.

And, to top it off, Tough Guy, Gov Douglas, in his state employee cost cutting is "holding" the line on Corrections Officers while cutting Parole and Probation personnel.

What he doesn't tell you is that as he releases more and more inmates as furloughees into our communities to try and save money, he is actually making our communities less safe because of the lack of supervision.
 
An interesting thing was reported by the BFP today, the VT Democratic Committee condemned Douglas for taking action in Windsor County and at the same time said they neither agreed or disagreed with the action of the State Attorney.

So if I understand it, the Dems condemn Douglas for taking action to ensure state laws are enforced by our Attorneys (basically doing his job) and at the same time do not have the backbone to say if they think Sands did the right thing or not. If they think Sands was right, say so and then condemn Douglas' action. If not, say that to and then explain why you think it is okay to not enforce state law and play favorites with a local buddy. How hypocritical can you get?
 
It's interesting to refer to Judge Davis' first offense.
It's her first arrest not her first offense
She ceratinly has been violating the law for quite a while.
 
Doesn't the pure size of what she had strike anybody as a lot. I could understand (I guess) if it was an ounce or something.

Also, its not like it was some youtful indiscretion. She's an adult with a responsible position. She knew the consequences of her actions and should be accountable for them just like you or I would be if it were us.
 
Let it go.
 
No, don't let it go.
 
Hold Sands accountable for his policy of letting influential rich white lawyer-judges off the hook for a serious drug offense that would land other people in jail.
 
Serious drug offense ? you must be kidding!
 
No, YOU must be kidding. 2.5 lbs plus a growing operation in the yard -- yeah, whether you like the drug laws or not, that's a serious offense, and she got seriously preferential treatment.

Sands should be held accountable.
 
"Sands should be held accountable."

I couldn't agree more. Douglas should really pursue it.
 
OOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
 
Impeach Sands!
 
Impeach Douglas!!!
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2009   December 2009   January 2010   February 2010   March 2010   April 2010