Illegal drug sales, especially marijuana, are on the rise. Underworld characters from cities in Massachusetts and New York are arrested and hauled before Vermont judges for drug-related crimes including sales, possession, theft and violence. A big-city urban street gang targets 14, 15 and 16 year-old youths, and Rutlanders are afraid.
This could be a chilling summary of recent events, but it is not. These events date from the mid-1990’s. Thirteen years ago this community was challenged as never before when it suddenly discovered that the urban street gang ‘Los Solidos’ had secretly established a ‘chapter’ in Rutland City.
Rutland was ill-prepared to respond. The plan was discovered following the arrest of a few well-know locals and a handful of unknown out-of-state gang members after a broad daylight street brawl over marijuana sales territory and local girlfriends. But the gang members were not unknown to federal and Massachusetts authorities. Once identified, excellent federal intelligence confirmed that the Solidos intended to colonize the community, starting exclusively with marijuana trafficking. But once established the Solidos invariably moved in crack cocaine and heroin.
As mayor, I had to respond, but how? I was raised in Rutland. The closest I had ever been to inner-city crime and violence had been watching The French Connection ten rows back at the Paramount. But I knew that what was happening in Rutland was in fact nothing new – it had happened in urban and suburban communities across the nation. So I got on the phone. I called the New England home turf of the Solidos, Holyoke and Springfield Massachusetts, Ludlow Massachusetts and Connecticut communities as well. I spoke with mayors and chiefs of police and I asked each of them three questions: When you learned that your community was a target what did you do? What was the result? And if you could do it all over again would you do the same thing?
To the first question there were two answers: “We handed the problem to the police and kept a lid on it to protect our image and avoid alarming the public” and, “We sounded the alarm, educated the public and mobilized the whole community.” In every case the ‘keep a lid on it’ approach had failed. In every case the ‘mobilize the community’ approach had succeeded. And in every case the advice was the same – don’t worry about Rutland’s short-term image, if you want to win this battle you have to get everyone involved.
With support from the Board of Aldermen and the Police Commission and a great deal of behind-the-scenes help from federal and regional law enforcement authorities, Police Chief Bob Holmes and I developed and implemented a two-pronged response.
First, we needed to educate parents, teachers, students, and anybody who would listen about the gang, their plans, indicators that a teen was involved and the pro-active things they could do to intervene. We identified teens potentially at-risk and mobilized community resources to fill their unmet needs. Dozens of programs were developed by dozens of organizations as diverse as the Salvation Army, Pond Hill Ranch and the Crossroads Arts Council. The Boys’ and Girls’ Club on Merchants Row is the successor of one such program. The region’s schools got together and organized training and programs for students, teachers and parents. The regional response was amazing, and all volunteers willing to help were encouraged.
The second front was to create a local police task force and literally shadow the gang. The ‘zero-tolerance’ policy quickly had the officers and gang members on a first-name basis. The near-constant scrutiny made it all but impossible for the members to litter, much less conduct their ‘business.’
These policies were controversial. I was publicly accused of bigotry, despite the fact that, notwithstanding their name, the Los Solidos were neither a racial nor ethnic gang – they accepted anybody. And the level of well-intentioned naiveté among adults in the region was startling. But it was the ‘it can’t happen here’ attitude that the gang planned to exploit.
In the end, the Los Solidos packed their bags and left, deciding that it was more profitable to conduct their business in another community; a community that paid little or no attention to their activities; a community that did not compete to reclaim its at-risk youth. And despite the controversy, Rutland’s response was nationally recognized as a model for rural communities.
Rutland now faces a new threat. The lessons learned in 1995 and 1996 could serve us well. But most importantly, Rutlanders should be confident that our community, working together, can meet today’s challenge.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Saturday, February 16, 2008
At least now we know what they’re smoking
[Note: It has been a very long time since I have posted to this blog. I have recently started a new, very busy job, and a whole host of excuses are at my disposal by way of explanation. But the growing drug and related crime situation in Rutland has gotten to the point that I felt it was time to get back to this column.]
Last Thursday I opened the Rutland Herald and had one of those ‘What are they thinking?’ reactions. You know what I mean; the slap-you-upside-the-head realization that either you or the rest of the world has gone mad. The ‘check the masthead to see if it’s April Fools Day because they can’t be serious’ reaction.
There, on the front page was an article about strong community reactions to the shootings, deaths and creeping drug-induced mayhem on the streets of Rutland. And just above that story is a report about the Vermont Senate’s tittering ‘debate’ and approval of a bill weakening penalties for small quantities of marijuana. The Rutland City story recounted the tragic events of last week which ended in a multiple shooting and homicide, allegedly over $20 worth of marijuana. This is the most recent of a series of shootings and drug busts in Rutland, invariably involving people from out-of-state urban areas.
With full knowledge of the crisis in Rutland, and with at least partial understanding that drug crimes are growing at an alarming rate across Vermont, the Vermont Senate voted 22-7 to play word-games with the penalty for possession of less than two ounces of marijuana for first or second offenders. While the sponsors of the legislation assured the senators that they were not decriminalizing the offense, their bill would give the offenders the choice of paying a fine or successfully completing the diversion program, which results in no criminal record.
The Herald story went on to report that a “. . . handful of jokes . . . scattered across the Senate floor that afternoon about pot,” but that a few senators failed to see the humor. A bill supporter, Sen. Richard McCormack, D-Windsor, was quoted as saying, “I’ve heard some audible snickering in the room today. . . and that’s probably because we know that our neighbors and friends are pot smokers. And this hypocrisy weakens the laws and dignity of the state.”
The ultimate challenge to ‘hypocrisy’ may have come when another bill supporter, Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington, read a statement from Windsor County prosecutor Robert Sand, which read in part, “The only people sending the wrong message are the ones suggesting that changing the offenses amounts to condoning its use.”
You may recall prosecutor Sand for his decision late last year to drop felony possession charges against attorney Martha Davis, who also served as a part-time judge, and give Davis the opportunity to attend diversion and avoid a criminal record. Reports indicated that Davis was busted for possessing several pounds of marijuana and growing it in her home. Sand has been so outspoken in his call for decriminalization that Governor Jim Douglas briefly ordered all felony possession cases in Windsor County be automatically referred to the Attorney General.
So here is my question: Why are out of state drug dealers suddenly setting up shop in Rutland and all across Vermont in record numbers? Is it the ‘hypocrisy’ of having drug laws on the books that some of Vermont’s elite citizens view as droll anachronisms?
No. That’s not it. The reason they are here is because Vermont has lax drug laws and flaccid prosecution. They are coming because national stories like the Martha Davis/Robert Sand fiasco broadcast to every drug dealing parasite from Chicago to Miami to the South Bronx that Vermont was a great place to open their next franchise. And now that 22 members of the Vermont Senate have affirmed the message, the gold rush is sure to gather steam.
Rutlanders are scared. They are afraid that they are slowly losing what has always been a safe and caring community to the scourge of the inner city. They are afraid that the next bullet will miss its intended target and hit a ten year old walking home from school.
And if that happens there will be a march on Montpelier. It will be interesting to hear what the Senators will say then.
[NOTE: The situation in Rutland is serious and it is reassuring to read reports that community members are seeing it as such. This is not the first time Rutland has successfully faced such a challenge and I have no doubt that we can do so again. For my next commentary I intend to share the lessons learned from our experience with the Los Solidos gang in the 1990’s.]
Last Thursday I opened the Rutland Herald and had one of those ‘What are they thinking?’ reactions. You know what I mean; the slap-you-upside-the-head realization that either you or the rest of the world has gone mad. The ‘check the masthead to see if it’s April Fools Day because they can’t be serious’ reaction.
There, on the front page was an article about strong community reactions to the shootings, deaths and creeping drug-induced mayhem on the streets of Rutland. And just above that story is a report about the Vermont Senate’s tittering ‘debate’ and approval of a bill weakening penalties for small quantities of marijuana. The Rutland City story recounted the tragic events of last week which ended in a multiple shooting and homicide, allegedly over $20 worth of marijuana. This is the most recent of a series of shootings and drug busts in Rutland, invariably involving people from out-of-state urban areas.
With full knowledge of the crisis in Rutland, and with at least partial understanding that drug crimes are growing at an alarming rate across Vermont, the Vermont Senate voted 22-7 to play word-games with the penalty for possession of less than two ounces of marijuana for first or second offenders. While the sponsors of the legislation assured the senators that they were not decriminalizing the offense, their bill would give the offenders the choice of paying a fine or successfully completing the diversion program, which results in no criminal record.
The Herald story went on to report that a “. . . handful of jokes . . . scattered across the Senate floor that afternoon about pot,” but that a few senators failed to see the humor. A bill supporter, Sen. Richard McCormack, D-Windsor, was quoted as saying, “I’ve heard some audible snickering in the room today. . . and that’s probably because we know that our neighbors and friends are pot smokers. And this hypocrisy weakens the laws and dignity of the state.”
The ultimate challenge to ‘hypocrisy’ may have come when another bill supporter, Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington, read a statement from Windsor County prosecutor Robert Sand, which read in part, “The only people sending the wrong message are the ones suggesting that changing the offenses amounts to condoning its use.”
You may recall prosecutor Sand for his decision late last year to drop felony possession charges against attorney Martha Davis, who also served as a part-time judge, and give Davis the opportunity to attend diversion and avoid a criminal record. Reports indicated that Davis was busted for possessing several pounds of marijuana and growing it in her home. Sand has been so outspoken in his call for decriminalization that Governor Jim Douglas briefly ordered all felony possession cases in Windsor County be automatically referred to the Attorney General.
So here is my question: Why are out of state drug dealers suddenly setting up shop in Rutland and all across Vermont in record numbers? Is it the ‘hypocrisy’ of having drug laws on the books that some of Vermont’s elite citizens view as droll anachronisms?
No. That’s not it. The reason they are here is because Vermont has lax drug laws and flaccid prosecution. They are coming because national stories like the Martha Davis/Robert Sand fiasco broadcast to every drug dealing parasite from Chicago to Miami to the South Bronx that Vermont was a great place to open their next franchise. And now that 22 members of the Vermont Senate have affirmed the message, the gold rush is sure to gather steam.
Rutlanders are scared. They are afraid that they are slowly losing what has always been a safe and caring community to the scourge of the inner city. They are afraid that the next bullet will miss its intended target and hit a ten year old walking home from school.
And if that happens there will be a march on Montpelier. It will be interesting to hear what the Senators will say then.
[NOTE: The situation in Rutland is serious and it is reassuring to read reports that community members are seeing it as such. This is not the first time Rutland has successfully faced such a challenge and I have no doubt that we can do so again. For my next commentary I intend to share the lessons learned from our experience with the Los Solidos gang in the 1990’s.]
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Climate Change: Hype or Planetary Crisis?
With the steady decline of the traditional media it is understandable that many folks would react to the issue of climate change with a healthy dose of skepticism. We have been burned too many times to assume that the hype and hysteria over this issue won’t soon be replaced by some new ‘threat to the future of civilization,’ and the actual impacts of global warming ultimately prove to be less severe and more manageable than currently believed.
And then there are the scientists. These are the folks who said avian flu would cause a world wide pandemic and the Y2K computer bug would bring global commerce to a halt. Just 35 years ago they said we were headed for a new ice age. So today it’s global warming. And tomorrow it will be something else.
But we certainly have seen a change in our climate. Anybody who remembers the 1960’s, or who looks at the records or listens to the recollections of senior citizens will tell you that something is happening. And the change is not subtle – in some places it is startling. Glaciers and polar ice are in full retreat. Eleven out of the last 12 years are among the warmest in modern history. The oceans are in fact rising, increasing four to eight inches through the twentieth century. And the number and intensity of storms certainly seems to be on the rise.
But isn’t the climate always changing? Has there ever been a period when the climate was not in transition? And isn’t it the height of human arrogance to believe that systems as vast as the oceans and the atmosphere could be significantly affected by us? Certainly, if such changes are taking place the role we humans play can be no more than marginal. And if we have little influence over the cause, what real prospect do we have to affect a cure?
If the climate is in fact changing shouldn’t we use our resources to adjust to the change, and set aside efforts to prevent it?
I always thought it ironic that the word ‘science’ is contained in the word ‘conscience’, as though one were the opposite of the other. And in a sense it is true, since skeptics are the conscience of science. Science is a continuous process of seeking the truth through ideas, experiment and debate. So the climate skeptics play a vital role in helping us all get closer to the truth. They point out the flaws, the places where a theory falls flat on its face, and force the advocates to rethink their assumptions and methods.
A few years ago the global warming skeptics rejected the notion that the Earth was warming. But the evidence is now overwhelming, so much so that no responsible scientist – advocate or skeptic - would argue against it. So now the debate has moved to causes. Is the warming the result of human-caused releases of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, or something else? Perhaps the sun is producing more heat and the 33 percent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since the industrial revolution is just coincidental.
Science needs skeptics to challenge the majority view, but for now the overwhelming majority of qualified experts believe that greenhouse gasses released by human activity are at least largely the cause of global warming. Even the most outspoken skeptic will concede that greenhouse gasses must be at least partially at fault.
So if human activity is at least partially to blame, does it not make sense that we should consider reducing our emissions? Everywhere this has been investigated, opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have been found and in many cases the measures create an economic benefit, not a burden. After all, saving energy usually saves money. If we can reduce emissions through cost-neutral measures what rational argument is there not to do so?
But what if the majority of scientists are right? What if the media, in spite of their affection for the sensational, are right or worse yet, have understated the threat? Clearly we need to get serious about adapting to this new world. And just as clearly whatever opportunity we have to reverse the dramatic rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas levels must be seized now or in the immediate future. Because if the majority of scientists are right, the environmental, social and economic impacts will be on a planetary scale. And that is not hype.
And then there are the scientists. These are the folks who said avian flu would cause a world wide pandemic and the Y2K computer bug would bring global commerce to a halt. Just 35 years ago they said we were headed for a new ice age. So today it’s global warming. And tomorrow it will be something else.
But we certainly have seen a change in our climate. Anybody who remembers the 1960’s, or who looks at the records or listens to the recollections of senior citizens will tell you that something is happening. And the change is not subtle – in some places it is startling. Glaciers and polar ice are in full retreat. Eleven out of the last 12 years are among the warmest in modern history. The oceans are in fact rising, increasing four to eight inches through the twentieth century. And the number and intensity of storms certainly seems to be on the rise.
But isn’t the climate always changing? Has there ever been a period when the climate was not in transition? And isn’t it the height of human arrogance to believe that systems as vast as the oceans and the atmosphere could be significantly affected by us? Certainly, if such changes are taking place the role we humans play can be no more than marginal. And if we have little influence over the cause, what real prospect do we have to affect a cure?
If the climate is in fact changing shouldn’t we use our resources to adjust to the change, and set aside efforts to prevent it?
I always thought it ironic that the word ‘science’ is contained in the word ‘conscience’, as though one were the opposite of the other. And in a sense it is true, since skeptics are the conscience of science. Science is a continuous process of seeking the truth through ideas, experiment and debate. So the climate skeptics play a vital role in helping us all get closer to the truth. They point out the flaws, the places where a theory falls flat on its face, and force the advocates to rethink their assumptions and methods.
A few years ago the global warming skeptics rejected the notion that the Earth was warming. But the evidence is now overwhelming, so much so that no responsible scientist – advocate or skeptic - would argue against it. So now the debate has moved to causes. Is the warming the result of human-caused releases of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, or something else? Perhaps the sun is producing more heat and the 33 percent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since the industrial revolution is just coincidental.
Science needs skeptics to challenge the majority view, but for now the overwhelming majority of qualified experts believe that greenhouse gasses released by human activity are at least largely the cause of global warming. Even the most outspoken skeptic will concede that greenhouse gasses must be at least partially at fault.
So if human activity is at least partially to blame, does it not make sense that we should consider reducing our emissions? Everywhere this has been investigated, opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have been found and in many cases the measures create an economic benefit, not a burden. After all, saving energy usually saves money. If we can reduce emissions through cost-neutral measures what rational argument is there not to do so?
But what if the majority of scientists are right? What if the media, in spite of their affection for the sensational, are right or worse yet, have understated the threat? Clearly we need to get serious about adapting to this new world. And just as clearly whatever opportunity we have to reverse the dramatic rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas levels must be seized now or in the immediate future. Because if the majority of scientists are right, the environmental, social and economic impacts will be on a planetary scale. And that is not hype.
Monday, September 24, 2007
The Business of America
The following radio commentary was originally aired on Vermont Public Radio on December 2nd, 2002.
On January 17th, 1925, President Calvin Coolidge addressed the American Society of Newspaper Editors in Washington, D.C. The speech was titled “The Press Under a Free Government,” but Americans soon forgot the subject and occasion. Out of nearly 2,500 thoughtfully prepared words, nine would come to define the Coolidge philosophy:
“… the chief business of the American people is business.”
For those of us too young to remember the twenties, we need only look back at the 1990’s to understand why these words resonated within their time. And, perhaps, why they have been so utterly separated from Coolidge’s true message.
Consider, for example, the following, from the same speech:
“We make no concealment of the fact that we want wealth, but there are many other things that we want very much more. We want peace and honor, and that charity which is so strong an element of all civilization. The chief ideal of the American people is idealism. I cannot repeat too often that America is a nation of idealists. That is the only motive to which they ever give any strong and lasting reaction.”
Coolidge was an unabashed capitalist. He consistently promoted unencumbered commerce as the machinery through which society’s ills would be repaired. But he was careful to distinguish between means and ends: He wrote,
“Of course, the accumulation of wealth can not be justified as the chief end of existence. But we are compelled to recognize it as a means to well nigh every desirable achievement. So long as wealth is made the means and not the end, we need not greatly fear it.”
From the perspective of the post-Enron twenty-first century, the popular caricature of Vermont’s most famous native president seems, well, irrelevant. But consider what he said about prosperity:
“Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped.”
Or success:
"The measure of success is not merchandise but character."
Or property:
". . . the possession of property carries the obligation to use it in a larger service."
Or of progress itself:
"The law of progress and civilization is not the law of the jungle. It is not an earthly law, it is a divine law. It does not mean survival of the fittest, it means sacrifice of the fittest. Any mother will give her life for her child. Men put women and children in lifeboats before they themselves will leave the sinking ship. John Hampden and Nathan Hale did not survive, nor did Lincoln, but Benedict Arnold did."
This taciturn Vermonter wrote volumes about character, service, idealism, and the American spirit. His true words speak powerfully about our obligation to one another, and to the future. The real Calvin Coolidge enjoyed unprecedented popularity in his time; and, perhaps, could be powerfully relevant in ours.
This is Jeff Wennberg in Rutland.
On January 17th, 1925, President Calvin Coolidge addressed the American Society of Newspaper Editors in Washington, D.C. The speech was titled “The Press Under a Free Government,” but Americans soon forgot the subject and occasion. Out of nearly 2,500 thoughtfully prepared words, nine would come to define the Coolidge philosophy:
“… the chief business of the American people is business.”
For those of us too young to remember the twenties, we need only look back at the 1990’s to understand why these words resonated within their time. And, perhaps, why they have been so utterly separated from Coolidge’s true message.
Consider, for example, the following, from the same speech:
“We make no concealment of the fact that we want wealth, but there are many other things that we want very much more. We want peace and honor, and that charity which is so strong an element of all civilization. The chief ideal of the American people is idealism. I cannot repeat too often that America is a nation of idealists. That is the only motive to which they ever give any strong and lasting reaction.”
Coolidge was an unabashed capitalist. He consistently promoted unencumbered commerce as the machinery through which society’s ills would be repaired. But he was careful to distinguish between means and ends: He wrote,
“Of course, the accumulation of wealth can not be justified as the chief end of existence. But we are compelled to recognize it as a means to well nigh every desirable achievement. So long as wealth is made the means and not the end, we need not greatly fear it.”
From the perspective of the post-Enron twenty-first century, the popular caricature of Vermont’s most famous native president seems, well, irrelevant. But consider what he said about prosperity:
“Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped.”
Or success:
"The measure of success is not merchandise but character."
Or property:
". . . the possession of property carries the obligation to use it in a larger service."
Or of progress itself:
"The law of progress and civilization is not the law of the jungle. It is not an earthly law, it is a divine law. It does not mean survival of the fittest, it means sacrifice of the fittest. Any mother will give her life for her child. Men put women and children in lifeboats before they themselves will leave the sinking ship. John Hampden and Nathan Hale did not survive, nor did Lincoln, but Benedict Arnold did."
This taciturn Vermonter wrote volumes about character, service, idealism, and the American spirit. His true words speak powerfully about our obligation to one another, and to the future. The real Calvin Coolidge enjoyed unprecedented popularity in his time; and, perhaps, could be powerfully relevant in ours.
This is Jeff Wennberg in Rutland.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Vermont defeats car makers; Earth wins
Being sued is an unavoidable hazard of serving in public office. Most often the grievance is narrow and the stakes are small, but once in a while you find yourself on the receiving end of a lawsuit with massive financial, legal or political implications.
All were the case when three Vermont auto dealers, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, DaimlerChrysler Corporation and General Motors Corporation jointly sued the secretary of natural resources, the head of Vermont’s air pollution control division and the commissioner of environmental conservation – that’s me – in an effort to stop Vermont’s new regulations limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from automobiles. I have since stepped down, but the regulations were proposed and adopted, and the sixteen-day trial was held while I was commissioner.
This trial was not supposed to set the first national precedent regarding whether states can legally regulate GHG emissions from cars. After all, California adopted the rules first, as required under the Clean Air Act. Under the Act, states get to choose between adopting the EPA vehicle emissions regulations or California’s and since 1996 Vermont has followed the California regulations.
Since California was the first state to adopt the rules, they were the first to have their rules challenged by the manufacturers. Vermont was second to adopt the rules, followed by eleven others. To fight this rule the manufacturers had to sue California, but they did not have to sue Vermont or Rhode Island, where they filed a similar lawsuit. Their apparent legal strategy is to bring lawsuits against “California Car” states in different federal circuits; the ninth (California, Washington and Oregon), the second (New York, Connecticut and Vermont) and the first (Massachusetts, Maine, and Rhode Island). The remaining “California Car” states are Florida (11th circuit), Pennsylvania and New Jersey (3rd circuit), and Maryland (4th circuit).
So why did the manufacturers choose Vermont and Rhode Island for their other challenges? Out of the list of ten states outside the ninth circuit, Vermont and Rhode Island would have the least resources from which to mount a defense. So the manufacturer’s strategy appeared to be to attempt to win all three cases, but a loss in California could be offset by a win in tiny Vermont or Rhode Island when the matter was finally brought before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Until early this year everyone working on the Vermont case expected the California trial would go first, followed quickly by Vermont and then Rhode Island, if that one went to trial at all. But motions brought by the State of California and issues within the court caused that trial to be delayed, pending a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on a different but related case, Massachusetts v. EPA.
However, in response to similar motions here U.S. District Judge William Sessions decided to go ahead with the Vermont trial, and await the Supreme Court decision before issuing his ruling. The domestic manufacturer’s welcomed this; no doubt the prospect of taking a Vermont victory into the California courtroom was delicious. The reaction in Montpelier was near panic.
Like the understudy being told ten minutes before curtain on opening night that he had to perform, Vermont Attorney General Sorrell, Governor Douglas, the Agency of Natural Resources and supporting interveners were forced to rethink the whole effort.
The burden of being the first to hear the testimony of industry experts and cross-examine them, the first to prepare our expert witnesses for their cross-examination; in essence, the burden of being the first to defend California’s rule was suddenly and unexpectedly placed on the smallest state. California had spent millions over several years to prepare for their trial. And just as with the GHG emissions rule itself, Vermont relied heavily on California’s experts, studies and preparations. But when it came to the first test before a federal judge, California now had to rely on Vermont.
Then, a couple of weeks before the trial began in late April the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Massachusetts V. EPA. In a 5-4 decision, the Court dealt a blow to the manufacturers’ case by holding that the Clean Air Act not only could be used to regulate vehicle GHG emissions, but that the reasons given by U.S. EPA for choosing not to were inadequate.
Judge William Sessions’ 240-page September 12th ruling in favor of Vermont and against the automobile manufacturers is far from the final step in this effort. But it represents a complete, if not final, victory. By all accounts the Vermont team, lead by Scot Kline of the attorney general's office, did an excellent job of defending our rule and challenging the claims of the manufacturers.
In the end Judge Sessions cited the Supreme Court ruling and rejected multiple legal, technical and economic claims brought by the manufacturers. And instead of the manufacturers defeating little Vermont and bringing that result to court in California, the California case may not even go to trial. According to the Boston Globe:
“A hearing is set for Oct. 22 in a similar case in California. But Matt Pawa, a lawyer who represented three national environmental groups in the Vermont trial, said the Vermont ruling makes it likely the California case will be dismissed.
"The persuasiveness of Judge Sessions' decision, we expect, should carry the day" in California, Pawa said.
He called the ruling "a historic win for the planet, for Vermont, for the cause to curtail global warming, and for the right of states to set more stringent limits on all kinds of pollution, including greenhouse gas emission standards."”
All were the case when three Vermont auto dealers, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, DaimlerChrysler Corporation and General Motors Corporation jointly sued the secretary of natural resources, the head of Vermont’s air pollution control division and the commissioner of environmental conservation – that’s me – in an effort to stop Vermont’s new regulations limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from automobiles. I have since stepped down, but the regulations were proposed and adopted, and the sixteen-day trial was held while I was commissioner.
This trial was not supposed to set the first national precedent regarding whether states can legally regulate GHG emissions from cars. After all, California adopted the rules first, as required under the Clean Air Act. Under the Act, states get to choose between adopting the EPA vehicle emissions regulations or California’s and since 1996 Vermont has followed the California regulations.
Since California was the first state to adopt the rules, they were the first to have their rules challenged by the manufacturers. Vermont was second to adopt the rules, followed by eleven others. To fight this rule the manufacturers had to sue California, but they did not have to sue Vermont or Rhode Island, where they filed a similar lawsuit. Their apparent legal strategy is to bring lawsuits against “California Car” states in different federal circuits; the ninth (California, Washington and Oregon), the second (New York, Connecticut and Vermont) and the first (Massachusetts, Maine, and Rhode Island). The remaining “California Car” states are Florida (11th circuit), Pennsylvania and New Jersey (3rd circuit), and Maryland (4th circuit).
So why did the manufacturers choose Vermont and Rhode Island for their other challenges? Out of the list of ten states outside the ninth circuit, Vermont and Rhode Island would have the least resources from which to mount a defense. So the manufacturer’s strategy appeared to be to attempt to win all three cases, but a loss in California could be offset by a win in tiny Vermont or Rhode Island when the matter was finally brought before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Until early this year everyone working on the Vermont case expected the California trial would go first, followed quickly by Vermont and then Rhode Island, if that one went to trial at all. But motions brought by the State of California and issues within the court caused that trial to be delayed, pending a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on a different but related case, Massachusetts v. EPA.
However, in response to similar motions here U.S. District Judge William Sessions decided to go ahead with the Vermont trial, and await the Supreme Court decision before issuing his ruling. The domestic manufacturer’s welcomed this; no doubt the prospect of taking a Vermont victory into the California courtroom was delicious. The reaction in Montpelier was near panic.
Like the understudy being told ten minutes before curtain on opening night that he had to perform, Vermont Attorney General Sorrell, Governor Douglas, the Agency of Natural Resources and supporting interveners were forced to rethink the whole effort.
The burden of being the first to hear the testimony of industry experts and cross-examine them, the first to prepare our expert witnesses for their cross-examination; in essence, the burden of being the first to defend California’s rule was suddenly and unexpectedly placed on the smallest state. California had spent millions over several years to prepare for their trial. And just as with the GHG emissions rule itself, Vermont relied heavily on California’s experts, studies and preparations. But when it came to the first test before a federal judge, California now had to rely on Vermont.
Then, a couple of weeks before the trial began in late April the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Massachusetts V. EPA. In a 5-4 decision, the Court dealt a blow to the manufacturers’ case by holding that the Clean Air Act not only could be used to regulate vehicle GHG emissions, but that the reasons given by U.S. EPA for choosing not to were inadequate.
Judge William Sessions’ 240-page September 12th ruling in favor of Vermont and against the automobile manufacturers is far from the final step in this effort. But it represents a complete, if not final, victory. By all accounts the Vermont team, lead by Scot Kline of the attorney general's office, did an excellent job of defending our rule and challenging the claims of the manufacturers.
In the end Judge Sessions cited the Supreme Court ruling and rejected multiple legal, technical and economic claims brought by the manufacturers. And instead of the manufacturers defeating little Vermont and bringing that result to court in California, the California case may not even go to trial. According to the Boston Globe:
“A hearing is set for Oct. 22 in a similar case in California. But Matt Pawa, a lawyer who represented three national environmental groups in the Vermont trial, said the Vermont ruling makes it likely the California case will be dismissed.
"The persuasiveness of Judge Sessions' decision, we expect, should carry the day" in California, Pawa said.
He called the ruling "a historic win for the planet, for Vermont, for the cause to curtail global warming, and for the right of states to set more stringent limits on all kinds of pollution, including greenhouse gas emission standards."”
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Don't be Afraid
The following is a radio commentary originally broadcast by Vermont Public Radio in September 2001.
My eyes opened slowly. This was not my room; this was not my bed; I was not. . . oh, this is a hotel room in Tokyo. Then I remembered. Was it a dream? No, no, it happened. I grabbed the remote and hit the power button. The TV stirred and Fox News confirmed it. A gaping, smoking hole was surrounded by what remained of the Manhattan skyline.
It was Wednesday morning, the day we were to return home from our mission to Rutland’s sister-city, Ishidoriya, Japan. And all had gone well, until ten hours before, when word reached us that two planes had plowed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, and another into the Pentagon. We watched the images in horror as we tried to reach families half a world away.
This was the first time Nancy and I had both been separated from our two children, who were staying with neighbors. “When will you be home?” We didn’t know. “Is it safe there?” Yes. We said it was very safe. We didn’t say that the embassy advised us to pay extra attention to our “personal security measures.” Our nine year old said, “they think this could lead to World War III.” “I don’t think so,” I answered, “The nations of the world will stand with us this time.” I never felt so needed, so helpless, or so afraid.
After several hours in front of the TV that morning we had to get away. We wandered aimlessly out of the hotel. We paused on a second floor walkway facing a shopping plaza and fountain. Then, together, Nancy and I saw it. Reaching up into the sky above the plaza, from behind some trees there stood a cross. Dwarfed by skyscrapers but facing us directly, here in non-Christian Tokyo, in the heart of what could be described as the most materialistic city in the world, there stood a cross.
We followed a walkway and a back street for no more than five minutes until we came to a small, plain brick building. Near the front were two police officers and an idling patrol car. The sign – in English – read “United Church of Christ - Japan.” I looked at a policeman who took a drag on his cigarette and returned my glance with curiosity. We went in.
A well dressed man and woman greeted us in Japanese as though we had arrived for an appointment. They handed us each a quarter-page sheet of light green paper with something printed on it in Japanese. They politely motioned for us to proceed down a wide corridor where we soon encountered two gentlemen who opened a pair of brass-handled wooden doors and invited us in.
The sanctuary was stark white, modest in size and unadorned. The pews were the same blond wood, and in the front of the church the wall supported a matching cross of massive proportions. Left and right of the cross stood the brushed steel pipes of the organ. Thirty people – all Japanese, were scattered around the room. They sat at quiet attention.
As we found a seat near the back, I looked at the green paper. The only thing written upon it that I could understand was a time – 12:00 to 12:55. I glanced at my watch and it was exactly 12:00. And at that moment a woman, seated at the organ, drew a breath, raised her hands and began to play. Exquisitely. The first hymn was unknown to us but the style was so familiar we were moved to tears. It was slow and sad and matched our mood. The next I recognized, although I don’t know the name. We prayed for the victims as the music washed over us, for their families, for our children, ourselves and our fellow travelers. We prayed for our hosts, for the world, and for the enlightenment of the authors of this new horror.
With each selection, the music moved from sadness to joy until the final selection filled us with hope and peace. At the conclusion the audience offered polite applause and then filed out. Not a word was spoken that hour, but for us a powerful message was heard. “Don’t be afraid. I am here.”
This is Jeff Wennberg, glad to be back in Rutland.
My eyes opened slowly. This was not my room; this was not my bed; I was not. . . oh, this is a hotel room in Tokyo. Then I remembered. Was it a dream? No, no, it happened. I grabbed the remote and hit the power button. The TV stirred and Fox News confirmed it. A gaping, smoking hole was surrounded by what remained of the Manhattan skyline.
It was Wednesday morning, the day we were to return home from our mission to Rutland’s sister-city, Ishidoriya, Japan. And all had gone well, until ten hours before, when word reached us that two planes had plowed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, and another into the Pentagon. We watched the images in horror as we tried to reach families half a world away.
This was the first time Nancy and I had both been separated from our two children, who were staying with neighbors. “When will you be home?” We didn’t know. “Is it safe there?” Yes. We said it was very safe. We didn’t say that the embassy advised us to pay extra attention to our “personal security measures.” Our nine year old said, “they think this could lead to World War III.” “I don’t think so,” I answered, “The nations of the world will stand with us this time.” I never felt so needed, so helpless, or so afraid.
After several hours in front of the TV that morning we had to get away. We wandered aimlessly out of the hotel. We paused on a second floor walkway facing a shopping plaza and fountain. Then, together, Nancy and I saw it. Reaching up into the sky above the plaza, from behind some trees there stood a cross. Dwarfed by skyscrapers but facing us directly, here in non-Christian Tokyo, in the heart of what could be described as the most materialistic city in the world, there stood a cross.
We followed a walkway and a back street for no more than five minutes until we came to a small, plain brick building. Near the front were two police officers and an idling patrol car. The sign – in English – read “United Church of Christ - Japan.” I looked at a policeman who took a drag on his cigarette and returned my glance with curiosity. We went in.
A well dressed man and woman greeted us in Japanese as though we had arrived for an appointment. They handed us each a quarter-page sheet of light green paper with something printed on it in Japanese. They politely motioned for us to proceed down a wide corridor where we soon encountered two gentlemen who opened a pair of brass-handled wooden doors and invited us in.
The sanctuary was stark white, modest in size and unadorned. The pews were the same blond wood, and in the front of the church the wall supported a matching cross of massive proportions. Left and right of the cross stood the brushed steel pipes of the organ. Thirty people – all Japanese, were scattered around the room. They sat at quiet attention.
As we found a seat near the back, I looked at the green paper. The only thing written upon it that I could understand was a time – 12:00 to 12:55. I glanced at my watch and it was exactly 12:00. And at that moment a woman, seated at the organ, drew a breath, raised her hands and began to play. Exquisitely. The first hymn was unknown to us but the style was so familiar we were moved to tears. It was slow and sad and matched our mood. The next I recognized, although I don’t know the name. We prayed for the victims as the music washed over us, for their families, for our children, ourselves and our fellow travelers. We prayed for our hosts, for the world, and for the enlightenment of the authors of this new horror.
With each selection, the music moved from sadness to joy until the final selection filled us with hope and peace. At the conclusion the audience offered polite applause and then filed out. Not a word was spoken that hour, but for us a powerful message was heard. “Don’t be afraid. I am here.”
This is Jeff Wennberg, glad to be back in Rutland.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Disappointment and Fear
Note: The following was posted before publication of the September 12 article,"Aldermen look to the future of city's finances." I have subsequently written a letter to the editor expressing support for the near-unanimous sentiment of the aldermen and the constructive tone of the article itself.
-JW 9/12/2007
This commentary is written with a combination of disappointment and fear. Disappointment for the unproductive finger pointing that is consuming the once-proud pages of the Rutland Herald, and to a lesser degree the attention of our good citizens; and fear that this effort will serve no purpose but to further distract our leaders from the challenges now before them. It has been my fervent hope that our city leaders would be given an opportunity to tackle our problems and put them behind us. We cannot meet the challenges of the future if we remain mired in the past. Before now I have chosen not to respond to attacks on my reputation and my record in the belief that the people of Rutland have not contracted amnesia and are not so easily fooled. I have refrained from responding in the hope that the Herald will return to reporting news and give the mayor, aldermen and treasurer the space they need to do their work. But my hopes have been shattered by the most recent reporting.
So let me start by responding to the expose’ published on Sunday, August 25th. The page one story, “Audits Show Fiscal Woes Dogged City for 20 Years,” is so riddled with errors and misstatements that a thorough correction would probably take as much space as the story itself. For the sake of brevity and clarity I will get right to the point.
At no time between 1987 and 2003 did the City of Rutland General Fund end any year in a deficit. The table printed with the article, and the article itself indicates that this happened in 11 out of these 16 years. This is not correct. Audited financial statements clearly show that the General Fund Balance in each of these years was a positive number. As mayor, I was responsible for the financial condition of the city between 1987 and 1998, and for budgets between 1988 and 1999. At the beginning of 1987, the General Fund Balance was $371,634. At the end of 1999 the General Fund Balance was $656,650. During my tenure the city never ran a deficit, and we never ‘borrowed’ from future years. Period.
The premise of the article is that the deficits plaguing the city extend back to my administration. But even the numbers published in the article prove this wrong. Take the General Fund for example. According to the table published August 25th, the cumulative ‘surpluses’ and ‘deficits’ between 1987 and 1999 total up to a positive $285,016, the same amount by which the General Fund Balance actually grew. This means that during my administration the General Fund improved by this amount.
Now add up the deficits between 2000 and 2005. The total is a negative $929,672. So, according to the numbers published in the article itself, the city’s General Fund improved by $285,016 through my twelve years, but lost nearly $930,000 over the next six.
Let’s turn to the Water, Sewer and Parking Meter Funds. Unlike the General Fund, which is managed year-to-year to maintain a small positive balance, these other funds are “enterprise funds.” These funds carry annual surpluses and deficits from year to year in the form of retained earnings.
The article ignores this. It does not present the starting balance, the ending balance or the reasons for changes. It does not separate the period before 1999 from that afterward. And the table includes an $850,000 payment from the Parking Meter Fund for the Multi Modal Transit Center, which was paid for through a revenue bond approved by city voters. This payment is lumped in with the regular day-to-day costs of operations and non-bond revenues, indicating in 1999 a $794,483 loss, when in fact the 1999 operations ended with a $55,517 gain.
Here is what the audits actually report. The total retained earnings of the Water, Sewer and Parking Meter funds in 1987 was $4,352,093. The total retained earnings of these funds in 1999 was $3,212,988. If we correct for the transit center, the 1999 retained earnings were $4,062,988. In between the city constructed a new water filtration plant and built a major upgrade to the wastewater treatment plant, and some of those costs were paid out of these reserves. Both projects increased the value of the city’s assets and increased debt in the form of bonds. That is why we raised water and sewer rates in 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1996 and increased the number of metered parking spaces. And that is why the combined Water, Sewer and Parking Meter Funds never dipped below $3 million in retained earnings between 1987 and 1999.
Now let’s look at 2000 through 2006. The total Water, Sewer and Parking Meter Funds' retained earnings started at $3,212,988. But by 2006 the retained earnings stood at a negative $1,043,542. That is a total loss of $4,256,530 over seven years.
The Rutland Herald article contains criticism of the operation of the treasurer’s office over the past 20 years. The Herald wants the reader to believe that inefficient or outdated operations are the source of multi-million dollar deficits. The operational problems were real, but deficits are not caused by outdated record keeping. Deficits come from spending more money than you have.
The audits flag operational problems but they also certify that the published financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the City of Rutland. Those financial statements document the irrefutable fact that the city’s financial position remained solid between 1987 and 1999. The record is public, and notwithstanding relentless efforts to rewrite history, it is clear that the city’s deficits began after 1999.
The table below replicates the General Fund numbers published in the Herald. The table has been expanded to include the General Fund balances, which are critical for an accurate presentation. Negative numbers – losses – are shown in brackets ( ). The published columns showing the Water, Sewer and Parking Meter Funds were so confusing and inaccurate replicating them here serves no purpose.
NOTE: Audits show larger deficits in 2004 and 2005 due to changes in accounting methods.
-JW 9/12/2007
This commentary is written with a combination of disappointment and fear. Disappointment for the unproductive finger pointing that is consuming the once-proud pages of the Rutland Herald, and to a lesser degree the attention of our good citizens; and fear that this effort will serve no purpose but to further distract our leaders from the challenges now before them. It has been my fervent hope that our city leaders would be given an opportunity to tackle our problems and put them behind us. We cannot meet the challenges of the future if we remain mired in the past. Before now I have chosen not to respond to attacks on my reputation and my record in the belief that the people of Rutland have not contracted amnesia and are not so easily fooled. I have refrained from responding in the hope that the Herald will return to reporting news and give the mayor, aldermen and treasurer the space they need to do their work. But my hopes have been shattered by the most recent reporting.
So let me start by responding to the expose’ published on Sunday, August 25th. The page one story, “Audits Show Fiscal Woes Dogged City for 20 Years,” is so riddled with errors and misstatements that a thorough correction would probably take as much space as the story itself. For the sake of brevity and clarity I will get right to the point.
At no time between 1987 and 2003 did the City of Rutland General Fund end any year in a deficit. The table printed with the article, and the article itself indicates that this happened in 11 out of these 16 years. This is not correct. Audited financial statements clearly show that the General Fund Balance in each of these years was a positive number. As mayor, I was responsible for the financial condition of the city between 1987 and 1998, and for budgets between 1988 and 1999. At the beginning of 1987, the General Fund Balance was $371,634. At the end of 1999 the General Fund Balance was $656,650. During my tenure the city never ran a deficit, and we never ‘borrowed’ from future years. Period.
The premise of the article is that the deficits plaguing the city extend back to my administration. But even the numbers published in the article prove this wrong. Take the General Fund for example. According to the table published August 25th, the cumulative ‘surpluses’ and ‘deficits’ between 1987 and 1999 total up to a positive $285,016, the same amount by which the General Fund Balance actually grew. This means that during my administration the General Fund improved by this amount.
Now add up the deficits between 2000 and 2005. The total is a negative $929,672. So, according to the numbers published in the article itself, the city’s General Fund improved by $285,016 through my twelve years, but lost nearly $930,000 over the next six.
Let’s turn to the Water, Sewer and Parking Meter Funds. Unlike the General Fund, which is managed year-to-year to maintain a small positive balance, these other funds are “enterprise funds.” These funds carry annual surpluses and deficits from year to year in the form of retained earnings.
The article ignores this. It does not present the starting balance, the ending balance or the reasons for changes. It does not separate the period before 1999 from that afterward. And the table includes an $850,000 payment from the Parking Meter Fund for the Multi Modal Transit Center, which was paid for through a revenue bond approved by city voters. This payment is lumped in with the regular day-to-day costs of operations and non-bond revenues, indicating in 1999 a $794,483 loss, when in fact the 1999 operations ended with a $55,517 gain.
Here is what the audits actually report. The total retained earnings of the Water, Sewer and Parking Meter funds in 1987 was $4,352,093. The total retained earnings of these funds in 1999 was $3,212,988. If we correct for the transit center, the 1999 retained earnings were $4,062,988. In between the city constructed a new water filtration plant and built a major upgrade to the wastewater treatment plant, and some of those costs were paid out of these reserves. Both projects increased the value of the city’s assets and increased debt in the form of bonds. That is why we raised water and sewer rates in 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1996 and increased the number of metered parking spaces. And that is why the combined Water, Sewer and Parking Meter Funds never dipped below $3 million in retained earnings between 1987 and 1999.
Now let’s look at 2000 through 2006. The total Water, Sewer and Parking Meter Funds' retained earnings started at $3,212,988. But by 2006 the retained earnings stood at a negative $1,043,542. That is a total loss of $4,256,530 over seven years.
The Rutland Herald article contains criticism of the operation of the treasurer’s office over the past 20 years. The Herald wants the reader to believe that inefficient or outdated operations are the source of multi-million dollar deficits. The operational problems were real, but deficits are not caused by outdated record keeping. Deficits come from spending more money than you have.
The audits flag operational problems but they also certify that the published financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the City of Rutland. Those financial statements document the irrefutable fact that the city’s financial position remained solid between 1987 and 1999. The record is public, and notwithstanding relentless efforts to rewrite history, it is clear that the city’s deficits began after 1999.
The table below replicates the General Fund numbers published in the Herald. The table has been expanded to include the General Fund balances, which are critical for an accurate presentation. Negative numbers – losses – are shown in brackets ( ). The published columns showing the Water, Sewer and Parking Meter Funds were so confusing and inaccurate replicating them here serves no purpose.
NOTE: Audits show larger deficits in 2004 and 2005 due to changes in accounting methods.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
