UPDATED: Bob Kiss to City Council: Fuck Off!

UPDATED BELOW

Mayor Bob Kiss is going ahead with the Lockheed Martin agreement with the city anyway.

At the Burlington Community Development and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee Meeting on Tuesday (6/7/11), the head of Burlington's Economic Development Office showed clearly that the mayor is in violation of City Council's February resolution about municipal public-private partnerships and the Lockheed Martin agreement.

The Lockheed discussion begins at the 9:20 mark in the video below. At 41:35, CEDO Director Larry Kupferman refers to Burlington being in a "partnership" with Lockheed.


Burlington Community Development and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee Meeting 6-7-11 from Arthur Hynes on Vimeo.

In response, Councilor Mulvaney-Stanak, at the 53:20 mark, is just too, too nice.

"Given the attention on this issue I'd hoped things would be a little more public, or at least the Council would be informed about discussions that were still happening with Lockheed in any sort ...of public way. [...] I think given the interest the public has shown on this it would have been nice if the Mayor had, and nice is not even the appropriate word, it would have been I think more appropriate for the Mayor to mention it in the public comments or have something that go out, so people have a chance to weigh in. Knowing that this process [drafting community standards] is still going on."

UPDATE (1:00 P.M. Friday, June 10):

The video from Tuesday is up on Vermont's two biggest political blogs. - Green Mountain Daily & VTDigger.org

Keep those calls coming! Phone lines at Mayor Kiss' office are open until 4:30 M-F (802)-865-7272.

DEAR LOCKHEED MARTIN

A Burlington citizen activist group NO LOCKHEED and Bill McKibben have issued a challenge to Lockheed Martin as its influence seeps into the City of Burlington (Vermont, Planet Earth):

Dear Lockheed Martin,

As a concerned citizen of Burlington, VT I feel obligated to let you know that the overwhelming majority of residents here seem strongly opposed to the proposed partnership between Lockheed Martin and the city of Burlington to address the impeding threat of climate change. Surprisingly, many people aren't opposed to the idea solely because you happen to be one of the world's largest arms manufacturers, but mainly because you don't seem to have much of a proven track record when it comes to addressing climate change. You see, here in Burlington we really pride ourselves on the notable efforts we've already made to reduce carbon emissions and develop sustainable communities, and we're rather reluctant to invite anyone into our town who doesn't already have a wealth of experience doing the same, regardless of their net worth. Otherwise what's the point, right?

Perhaps you've heard of climate change expert Bill McKibben. In a recent Burlington Free Press article McKibben says of Lockheed, "The fear that they could be just greenwashing is real -- for instance, these guys belong to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has opposed every single good idea on energy and climate for decades; to me, that's a sign they're willing to make money on climate, but still work in Washington to prevent meaningful progress." This is your big chance to prove otherwise.

McKibben's NGO 350.org. It's an international non-profit dedicated to stopping climate change. 350 just launched a new campaign 'The U.S. Chamber Doesn't Speak For Me' to "show that when it comes to climate and energy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce represents the interests of big polluters, not everyday American business." According to a recent New York Times article, ("Justices Offer Receptive Ear to Business Interests" 12/18/10),"[The Chamber of Commerce] board includes executives from some of the nation's biggest companies, including Lockheed Martin." The Chamber of Commerce filed a brief in a Supreme Court case stating, a suit by eight states against power companies over carbon dioxide emissions, 'has potentially disastrous implications for the U.S. business community."

The New York Times article links to the Supreme Court brief (American Electric Power Company Inc., et al. v. State of Connecticut, et al.) which shows the lengths the Chamber of Commerce and its corporate partners, including Lockheed, will go to block carbon reductions.The brief implies that the states’ efforts to regulate C02 emissions are “ill-conceived policies and measures which could damage the economic security of the United States.” It belittles the states’ earnest litigation to address the climate crisis as an example of “nuisance suits,” which are “an especially ill-conceived and constitutionally illegitimate response." Like Mom always said, "you'll be judged by the company you keep." Right?

So we have thought of a great way you could prove your commitment to addressing climate change to the citizens of Burlington so someone other than Mayor Kiss might be a little more supportive of this proposed partnership. Would you be willing quit the US Chamber of Commerce and prove to us you really are committed to addressing the climate crisis? You see, like McKibben says, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has maintained a hard-line opposition to any legislation addressing the climate issue, so it's very hard to take anyone seriously who says that they want to address this issue while maintaining their involvement with them. You wouldn't be the first corporation do to so either! Apple, Nike, and Johnson & Johnson have all quit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for this very reason! Even utility companies such as Exelon, Pacific Gas & Electric, and PNM Resources resigned from the Chamber over its environmental policy. Won't you be the next brave corporation to show your commitment to addressing climate change by quitting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? It sure would help the citizens of Burlington take your proposal a little more seriously...

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Anna Guyton, Peace & Justice Center Program Manager

Joe Solomon, 350.org

Jenna Whitson, 350.org

David Stember, 350.org

Page Atcheson 350.org

Jonathan Leavitt, Journalist and Community Organizer

Will Bennington, Farmer and Community Organizer

Laurie Essig Phd.

Liza Cowan, Director, Pine Street Art Works

Danielle Bombardier, Community Organizer

Bryan Parmelee

Arthur Hynes

Peggy Luhrs

Juliet Buck

James Vos

Jen Berger

Patrick Wood

Lewis Holmes

Alan Taplow

Colleen Deignan

Michelle Marion

Tristan Pulley

Paul Schanbel

Jennifer Martin

Skye Ellicock

Laurie Larson

BURLINGTON CITY ELECTION 2009 RESULTS

CITY OF BURLINGTON
MAYOR CANDIDATES

1st Round: Wright first, Simpson, Smith eliminated
2nd Round: Montroll eliminated.
3ndRound: Most of Montroll voters voted Kiss for second choice. Kiss elected.

Results on the 3rd Round OF IRV

Bob Kiss/P 4313
Kurt Wright/R 4061

http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/elections/election-night-coverage-03-03-2009#Burlington%20Mayor

City Council winners:

Ward 1 Sharon Bushor I
Ward 2 Emma Mulvaney-Stanek P
Ward 3 Marissa Caldwell P
Ward 4 Nancy Kaplan D (Kurt Wright's old seat)
Ward 5 Joan Shannon D
Ward 6 Mary Kehoe (open seat that belonged to Andy Montroll)
Ward 7 Eli Lesser-Goldsmith D 618 Victor Dobra R 612 - RUN-OFF


The pundits are going to have a field day with the results.

Now let sugaring and mud season begin!

THE LAST MAYORAL DEBATE

"The debate was sponsored by Democracy for America, Green Mountain Daily and the UVM College Democrats. Speaking to a packed house, candidates Bob Kiss, Andy Montroll, and Dan Smith handled a wide range of questions, from the first president they voted for, the underfunding of Burlington's pension fund, and, yes, frolf at Leddy Park."

I didn't go to it (and neither did Republican candidate Kurt Wright).

The city election is Tuesday, 3 March. Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

LOCAL ISSUE: RENT RISE FOR CITY FARMER MARKETEERS

Over the weekend I read about this in a Front Porch Forum post by Chris Wagner, the market manager of Burlington Farmers' Market. In the Free Press today is an article alluding to that post:- Wagner said in his public letter that the market’s steering committee decided to meet with Kiss, to make sure he understood that the increases would be stressful to the vendors — particularly those just starting out. They met Friday in what Bissell called a cordial discussion.

“He was basically noncommittal,” Bissell said of Kiss. “He said he was going to talk with Wayne (Gross). It was hard to tell where he was going with it.”

“We heard the city supports the market,” Wagner said. “We were glad to have him say it, but I think we expected a little bit more.” Kiss said, “We’re at the beginning of the process, and we’ll move forward to make a proposal.” He said he would talk to Gross about the issue later this week.

Of course Bob Kiss loves 'process,' and is non-committal, although I note a hint of the usual double-speak.

Mayor Bob Kiss said the proposed rent increase from the Parks and Recreation Department is still in flux and will be resolved by late March or early April.

After the city mayoral election, you see.

No doubt the FPF post is making the rounds in the organic granola neighborhoods of Birkenstock... uhm Burlington. Already, under the Kiss administration, the Parks and Rec Dept have been under fire about their procedures. Given that, I don't think it's coincidental that news of the rent rise comes out the week before the city election.

BURLINGTON MAYORAL ELECTION INTEGRITY AT STAKE

On the face of it, the recent Burlington Free Press story is a non-story, but certainly a last-ditch effort at dirty politics in an otherwise uneventful campaign. Tempers escalated in the Burlington mayoral campaign this week when a Bob Kiss surrogate - the city's Chief Administrative Officer Leopold - accused Democratic candidate Andy Montroll of a conflict of interest in his role as a member of the city council's finance committee. Mr Montroll was pissed - rightly so; meanwhile Mayor Kiss stood idly by and said it was a "misunderstanding." A few have judged the merits of the Briggs story, but the damage has been done. Voters will decide anyway on March 3rd in the Instant Run-off Voting mayoral city election.

Sadly. however, there is a bigger problem than the hijinks of a political campaign.

Much greater concern to Burlington voters is this: the choice for the next mayor of Burlington may be decided for them before they've even had a opportunity to vote. There are serious technical, procedural and ethical questions about how the city will handle the mayoral IRV election. Voters will have two ballots, one is IRV for mayor and the other is for referendum items and other candidate races. After voting, each will be deposited by voters in separate voting machines. Normally, at the start and end of voting, election officials are required to sign off on a print out from the voting tabulator machine, at the beginning to show that the machine's "memory card" is at "zero," and at the end to show the number of votes cast. That will happen with the non-mayoral ballots, but won't be possible with the IRV ballots. And that's the big deal about this election. A important step in accounting for the integrity of the election will not happen, as described by Owen Mulligan, Ward Clerk for Ward 6, in an email he sent to two reporters at Seven Days newspaper [my emphasis in bold]:--

Subject: Mayoral Election Concerns

Ken and Shay,

I'm writing to you because as an election official in Ward 6 I have a concern about the way this election will be handled. Last time we had an IRV election, I was not a Ward Clerk but I believe the issue was probably the same then and for some reason no one brought it up or maybe they did...I don't know.

Anyway, my intention here with this email is just to let you know what my concern is and then if you feel it warrants further investigation or reporting, then so be it.

I will try to explain, but this is not easy to do non-verbally so hopefully you will get the point I'm trying to make:

At the polls and before we open them for voting, we always check each tabulator machine to make sure there are no ballots in the ballot box..that is for the actual ballot box that holds the paper ballots and also the electronic ballot box being the "memory card" that is sealed into the tabulator machine.

To check the memory card to make sure there are no electronic votes on the card we do an opening print out which will have all the races and all the candidates being at zero showing there are no votes cast. We then as election officials sign off on this print out from the machine if all races are pre-set at zero votes. This is an important print out..all the elected officials must sign off on it. We do this for every election and for every tabulator machine that is used.

My concern is, and I do not feel comfortable as an election official running the election this way, is that on the IRV machine I have been informed that we will not be able to do a print out or even an end of night print out from the machine at the polls. So essentially a huge step in the process of election integrity has been removed and centralized at City Hall. The way it is now, I'm supposed to turn on the machine and have people vote without ever being able to get a print out letting me know that the races are pre-set to zero votes on the memory card.

City Hall does a check on each memory card before they are sealed just like every election before they are delivered to each polling location, the difference this time is we are not able to do that print out at each polling location and check the "electrnoc ballot box" to make sure the races are pre-set at zero. There is nothing for us to sign off on and we are supposed to blindly trust the memeory card that City Hall has provided us. I do not feel this is responsible and it does not sit well with me. I'm going to have a bad taste in my mouth for the whole election day. I just can't ignore the fact that a whole step has been removed because the machines do not have the technology to do a print out for IRV programming.

If either of you feel like dicussing this or feel that it warrents any attention please let me know. I think the voters deserve to know and steps should be taken to make sure the next time we have an IRV election that print outs will be possible. At this point in time and esp. with all the issues Burlington has had with elections, we should not be removing steps in the process of election integrity.

I absolutely support IRV, but I do not support the way the city is running the IRV election. The technology to do print outs is somehting that should have been checked into before we ever made a transition to IRV or if that technology is available then why don't we have it?.

Owen Mulligan
Ward 6 Clerk

Owen tells me that Shay Totten responded in a disinterested email that he would not pursue Owen's concerns in a 7D story; Ken Picard has at yet not replied.

Something is indeed rotten at Election Central, 139 Church Street, Burlington, Vermont. Burlington voters should be enraged as I am that the integrity of our City Election 2009 is at stake.

EN GARDE!

ONCE AGAIN, it's the City of Burlington/Kiss administration and the Parks Department versus citizens and an Old North End neighborhood.

"The Avant Garden," Standley wrote Thursday in an e-mail distributed to city officials and the news media, "is/was intended for a place for people to grow (food and themselves) and gather, not a place for the city to control and to use to make itself look community-oriented."

Two trees were cut down by the Parks Department personnel; the day before they were removed Ms Standley had been told they wouldn't be taken down. Councilor Tim Ashe, P-Ward 3 says it's just a communications gap. On whose part, Mr Ashe?

ONCE AGAIN, there's obfuscation and no accountability from the city officials.

Cross-posted at Local Action Works!