The Norwich Navel

Both Sides Now

2011-11-26T09:41:00.011-05:00

I've received a lot of emails asking for copies of Stuart Richards' November 19th Valley News Forum letter, so I've scanned it. You should be able to access a PDF version of it HERE.

I've also submitted a letter to the Valley News Forum myself in response to Stuart's letter which I preview (unedited) below:

To the Editor:

Stuart Richards' November 19th Forum letter exemplifies the intractability of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Like so many on both sides of the conflict, Richards engages in broad brush bigotry cloaked within a litany of selective facts. He draws upon the most extreme examples of Palestinian belligerence to conclude the Palestinian people, as a whole, are unworthy interlocutors for peaceful settlement, surmising "[t]hey'd rather celebrate and dance in the streets, as they did after 9/11, or (sic) celebrate the murder of innocent Israeli women, children and men, while idolizing their own suicide bombers."

Of course, similar screeds pop up among the Op-Eds in the Arab press, extrapolating proof of Jewish sub-humanity from similarly extreme examples of Israeli belligerence. For every Hamas adherent vowing to wipe out the Occupier there is a settler movement true believer advocating Greater Israel. Back and forth these verbal salvos fly, enraging one another while enlightening no one.

Certainly one lesson of these past sixty-five years must be the fact neither extreme has the means to wipe out the other; however much they may wish otherwise. Instead, as is more typical of stalemated conflicts, these extremes will continue to provoke and outrage one another until the wider population grows exhausted by the carnage and destruction. Eventual peace emerges from compromises which are only possible once the toll and pointlessness of continued conflict have become unbearable -- once war has transitioned from appearing to offer a solution to being recognized as the problem itself.

In the meantime, the anguish and despair elicited by this conflict prompts rants such as Richards has indulged in here. Yet, however much one may share the anguish and despair for lives torn apart by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it seems to me an intolerable indulgence to paint one's enemy as less than human. This indifference towards their anguish gives license to the awful bombings of civilian targets in Israel; the massacres in Qana, Sabra and Shatila; the Christmas bombings of Hanoi; the London Blitz; and too many other civilian bloodlettings to comprehend.

Despite a widespread, adolescent, desire to believe otherwise, neither Arab nor Jew holds a monopoly on righteousness in this conflict. Good people, Jew and Arab alike, are being destroyed by the day. Many are traumatized, maimed, or killed in the violence. Others are rotted out by hatred; at best blinded to the shared humanity of their adversaries. At worst, they perpetrate retaliatory violence hoping to inflict such suffering that their enemies will yield or their own anguish will abate. Barring a thorough genocide by one people or the other, Israelis and Palestinians will continue to live in close proximity for generations to come. No one can say when they will finally be convinced of the futility in continued conflict. For now, it seems to me our duty to challenge the bigotry that fuels this war and to resist the temptation to dehumanize either party to what is, after all, a thorough-going disaster which will appear an incomprehensible footnote in the history books.

Watt Alexander
Norwich, VT

sleeping with tyrants

2011-01-31T21:06:00.003-05:00

I recently listened to an interview with Aung San Suu Kyi from the BBC where she said:

It is not power that corrupts, but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.

In Egypt today, we are witnessing a people uniting to free themselves from a crippling fear of Mubarak's scourge.

We are also witnessing the Obama Administration paralyzed by a fear of losing power. Losing power over a group of Arab dictators who have convinced us they are the necessary bulwark against a hostile Arab street.

The Administration fears losing a status quo which; however intolerable to millions of Arabs living under it's crushing heel, is a devil we know.

I believe Barack Obama is a smart, well-intentioned man who has surrounded himself with smart, well-intentioned staff. Their minds are focused upon the potential downsides to trusting the Egyptian people to forge their own course. The Administration's fear of losing influence prevents them honoring a people struggling to free themselves from their fear of the iron rod.

And the rest is just words.

Making Fiscal Sense II

2010-10-28T12:07:00.003-04:00

I (Watt now) think Stan raises crucial questions that deserve honest debate even if I have some doubts about Stan's proposed solutions.

To my mind, Stan flags the biggest challenge we face regarding our public schools: Transparency.

Between the privacy restrictions that obscure teacher/administrator evaluation; collective bargaining labor negotiations; and special education spending, voters/citizens/parents are left to accept a great deal of school management on faith. Add to this the sprawling regulatory compliance requirements for public schools and the idea a volunteer school board can adequately manage this bureaucracy has become -- to my mind -- an open question. This struggle parallels our selectboard's challenges working with professional staff.

I believe we are witnessing the decline of citizen-based self-government in the face of inexorable bureaucratization of municipal governance. This bureaucratization is not some conspiracy or sinister plot, but the accretion of decades of honest efforts by administrative professionals to get their jobs done better and -- as should be expected of anyone -- to look after their interests in the process. To me, this goes to the heart of what our selectboard and school board members' roles should be, but that's a separate post (or book).

In the meantime, take a look at a Norwich Town Report from just a generation ago and you can see how much has changed - - not simply in budget numbers, but in the tone and aspirations expressed regarding town services and the future.

I'm not a fan of Tea Party magic wand of fiscal discipline and I'm not saying things were better when we spent less. I'm just saying the collective delusional thinking that has brought our economy to a standstill wasn't restricted to housing prices. It's easy to promise future defined benefit pension payments when everyone thinks we're going to be richer tomorrow than we are today. It's easy to accept higher property taxes, bond payments and educator salary step increases when we're all confident money grows on houses. Those days are now past and the economic dislocation is still reverberating through our lives.

And here, perhaps, the public/private sector distinction is important to recognize: In the private sector, the owners and creditors define acceptable expenses. In the public sector, taxpayers and the bond market ultimately decide. Taxpayers, by definition, are doing something else with their time/energy so they can pay their taxes. That attenuation of the taxpayer's ability to focus on the services funded by those taxes is supposedly remedied through the efforts of volunteer boards and, increasingly, professional administrators.

There is simply no way taxpayers or the bond market can keep close tabs on the management of public sector entities anywhere near the degree business owners and creditors do. We need to recognize that fact and consider practical measures to reduce the danger posed by public sector management mistakes. We've all seen enough private sector management disasters to know mistakes will occur.

Stan's post highlights several school-related risks and concludes they are leading towards fiscal disaster. Arguing about the public/private distinction doesn't help us assess the magnitude of these risks or consider what we can do to address them. From where I stand, I certainly don't think we can expect a new school superintendent to lead that debate. It's going to require concerned citizens/taxpayers/parents asking difficult questions of ourselves and our community.

I wish us luck.

Making Fiscal Sense I

2010-10-28T11:57:00.005-04:00

I believe the entire public sector/private sector discussion referred to (on the Norwich ListServ 10/28/10) arises from Stan Williams' "new superintendent qualifications input" post from earlier this week.

I'm afraid the public/private sector distinction is unnecessarily/unhelpfully obscuring Stan's "three major concerns about the state of the Hanover/Norwich school system."

To press the points home, I've repeated Stan's post below [sanitized of the public/private distinction within bold italicized brackets] as I think his points are well worth pondering and discussion:

I have three major concerns about the state of the Hanover/Norwich school system.

1. Unfunded pension and health liabilities will crush our ability to provide a quality education at a reasonable cost unless we continue to attack these costs - the new superintendent must be able and willing to tackle this issue in the next round of contract negotiations. At a minimum, new teachers should not expect to receive a defined benefits pension - this perk has [become a major and intractable fiscal millstone for many states and municipalities].

2) Teacher Evaluation - as a board member for two years, I was never able to receive ANY data on the number of teachers rated excellent, good, poor (use any rating system you like.) I find it hard to believe that it is possible to effectively run a service sector, labor intensive operation without good data on employee performance, and I believe the board and taxpayers need more information, in aggregate - not individually, about teacher performance.

I know the board has addressed merit pay in the past and defining excellent performance is not easy and can be subjective, but [as individuals, we tackle difficult, subjective decisions every day] and [where evaluating the quality of our childrens' education is in question] imperfection is better than not trying at all.

3) Tenure - originally intended to protect academic freedom, this is another perk that really [begs the question whether we are guaranteeing employment at the expense of evaluating quality of teaching]. The administration needs the ability to more easily terminate teachers that don't make the grade (see above.)

To teachers who may think this sounds a bit harsh, I can only say that I do appreciate the individual excellent efforts of the vast majority of the teachers who have taught my children very well over the years. But I honestly believe these are key issues on which we must focus as a school system as well as a society - we can no longer afford to have education costs rise greater than GDP growth in perpetuity. (This goes as well for universities, where the issues above are all in play, or will soon be.)

Thanks for your efforts on the board.

Stan Williams

[paraphrased/rephrased by Watt Alexander]

Whither Sewer?

2010-09-14T12:33:00.003-04:00

Three months ago, Stan Williams and I posted an "Open Letter" to the Selectboard and Planning Commission asking a series of questions we hoped would spur public discussion of the sewer extension implications of the King Arthur expansion project.

While we expressed our support for the sewer extension, we posed the questions in an effort to help everyone appreciate the difficult planning and permitting issues posed by sewer service regardless of King Arthur's specific plans.

Our Open Letter "respectfully request[ed] the Planning Commission and/or Selectboard to provide written public responses so all townspeople can participate in this discussion."

As yet there has been no public response of any kind to the questions posed in our Open Letter from either the Selectboard or Planning Commission.

I can imagine several possible explanations for the resounding silence in the interim:

They were all stupid questions?

No one has time to determine whether there might be some decent questions among the stupid ones?

There's been no time in busy SB or PC agendas to respond in any way?

It's unreasonable for individual citizens to expect volunteer boards to take the time to respond to every Open Letter they receive?

Public discussion of the planning issues might have delayed King Arthur's plans?

King Arthur may not need a sewer extension after all?

If we really wanted answers, we would have attended Selectboard and Planning Commission meeting to demand them?

No one else seemed to care about these questions, so why not ignore them?

No SB or PC members read the listserv?

This morning, Phil Dechert posted public notice on the DRB mailing list announcing the first public hearing on King Arthur's Conditional Use permit application. This public hearing is scheduled for 7:30pm the day after tomorrow, Thursday, September 16th.

So I have another question:

How should we have addressed these questions to prompt public discussion of what many have said over the years should be a planning priority for this town?

And some more:

This is how land use planning and permitting work in Norwich today.
Is this how planning and permitting should work in Norwich?
Do land use planning and permitting work in Norwich?

The questions are piling up.

When Common Sense Isn't Enough

2010-08-05T23:40:00.010-04:00

I've set out my own views on gay marriage and equal rights for homosexuals in earlier posts here and here.

My argument has always been one of strategy, not results.

I still think establishing civil unions in all fifty states would be the quickest and most effective way to bring the right of marriage to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation, but the direct litigation campaign has taken precedence.

Today's federal district court decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger is the first fruit of the direct litigation route and has brought the constitutional arguments concerning gay marriage sharply into focus.

Gay marriage proponents could hardly ask for a more common sense and matter-of-fact exposition on how California's Proposition 8 fails to pass constitutional muster.

While I'm persuaded by the reasoning, and take a professional interest in the craftsmanship, I also recognize I'm sympathetic with the outcome.

The more rational me recognizes that Judge Walker's decision rests entirely on a legal house of cards -- a very generous articulation of "fundamental rights."

The history of this debate over "fundamental rights" is as long and contoured as the history of the nation itself.

The current composition of our Supreme Court manifests a certain chapter in that debate, but a chapter which is highly unlikely to establish same-sex marriage as fundamental.

This Court is dominated by a political desire to circumscribe the expansion of "fundamental rights;" counterbalanced at the margin (Justice Kennedy) by a libertarian distrust of the state's authority to punish or sanction certain behaviors.

The identification of same-sex marriage as a fundamental right is not simply unpersuasive in their eyes. It's an incitement. A blatant example of how unprincipled and unhinged our constitutional jurisprudence has become. Further evidence of how unelected judges oppress individual conscience by championing their own personal values as "fundamental rights."

Indeed, the current court may prove to be the high water mark of this tide against expanding fundamental rights. Perversely, a Supreme Court ruling in this case may prove to be a sign that tide has begun to ebb.

Let's assume Perry works its way through the Ninth Circuit this year and reaches the Supreme Court in their October 2011 term. We should see a decision in June 2012, almost certainly reversing the district court, very likely on a 5-4 vote.

The final word? Hardly.

November 2012 we vote once more for president.

Will Perry be a symbol of the Supreme Court restricting our individual freedom to choose a mate or will it be a symbol of the Supreme Court vindicating the sanctity of the institution of marriage? You want to know where the majority of voters stand nationally, just watch the Republican Party squirm these next two years.

As with the abortion debate, same-sex marriage is an argument they don't want to win because the on-going debate is so valuable to them as a recruitment and fund-raising tool. The aggrieved and oppressed retain a unity in their opposition which falls apart in their ascendance. Republicans do much better as victims in opposition.

It's going to be messy and it's going to get loud, but that's how this conversation plays.

In terms of constitutional jurisprudence, I think same-sex marriage is a matter of equal rights and not fundamental rights. The equal rights argument is irresistible. The fundamantal rights argument is implausible until the vast majority of Americans are persuaded this is a matter of equal rights. Once that occurs, equal rights are fundamental rights. That is simply a matter of time, but it's clear from today's decision in Perry, it will be a long and winding path.

Joint Letter from Stan Williams & Watt Alexander

2010-06-07T06:57:00.004-04:00

Open Letter to Norwich Selectboard and Planning Commission

On several occasions over the past forty years, town committees have examined wastewater treatment options for Norwich. These studies have been prompted, in part, by concerns that commercial development in town is effectively capped by limited septic capacity. They have all concluded that construction of a new municipal system may be prohibitively expensive.

A variety of reports by town committees, commissions, and our zoning regulations have identified the Route 5 South corridor as the area in town best suited to handle further commercial development.

Most recently, the 2005 Sewer Committee Report concluded that an arrangement to extend Hartford’s sewer line to serve properties on Route 5 South would likely be the most cost-effective way to facilitate further commercial development in town.

That same committee report noted ruefully that a 1991 Town Plan implementation goal -- to explore how public wastewater treatment might “create a basis for concentrating growth in designated areas” -- remains unfulfilled.

King Arthur Flour is an exemplary company and fine corporate citizen in our town. King Arthur feels future growth at their Norwich location depends upon their ability to secure a sewer extension from the Town of Hartford. King Arthur may have the resources to construct an extension sufficient for their own needs, but is unlikely to have any incentive to design that extension at a scale suitable for commercial growth among other properties in the Route 5 South corridor.

It is time for us all to recognize that development pressure in the Route 5 South corridor has outstripped our town’s ability to plan for it.

Instead, we should to embrace the opportunity King Arthur has presented us, using their initiative to fashion a wastewater extension -- and concomitant zoning regulations -- “concentrating growth” where this community feels such growth would be most appropriate.

Creating a district to be served by this wastewater extension, and the attendant zoning regulations to govern development within that district, has the added benefit of requiring public votes at both the Planning Commission and Selectboard. These votes ensure those in our community who feel strongly about these changes have an opportunity to be heard and place ultimate responsibility for these changes with our elected officials where it belongs.

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. If we can’t manage to make something more of this opportunity, then it’s time to ask what we’re planning for.

As a means to these ends, we pose the following specific questions and respectfully request the Planning Commission and/or Selectboard to provide written public responses so all townspeople can participate in this discussion:

1. How would you determine whether it is in the interest of the town to concentrate more intensive commercial development along the Route 5 South corridor? How long might that take?

2. How would you determine whether a municipal wastewater extension from Hartford would be the most cost-effective way to facilitate a concentration of commercial development on Route 5 South, if so desired?

3. What changes are needed to create zoning and subdivision regulations to govern commercial development served by municipal wastewater instead of on-site septic?

4. If King Arthur decides to build a sewer extension privately and applies to the town for permits to construct this extension, are you confident we have adequate regulations on the books to fairly balance community and developer interests? If not, how long do you think it will take the town to draft, review and adopt these regulations?

5. If King Arthur decides to build a sewer extension privately and then seeks regulatory approval for a significantly more intensive use on their Norwich site -- more classroom capacity, parking for buses, and a subdivided parcel to host a restaurant -- what changes to our septic-system-based zoning/subdivision regulations would you hope to have in place in time to properly review that application? How long do you think it will take the town to draft, review and adopt these regulations?

6. If the Town of Norwich needs to revise our zoning/subdivision regulations to keep abreast of the development applications King Arthur’s plans will pose, how much more time would it take to draft, review and adopt regulations that could be applied to multiple lots on the Route 5 South corridor?

7. Can/should the town ask King Arthur to design its system to make future municipal use easier? Or is there any mechanism we could put in place so the town or other users could later tap into King Arthur’s system at a pre-determined price?

8. How would you determine where that concentrated commercial district should start and stop?

9. What are we waiting for?

Go King Arthur!?

2010-05-30T11:41:00.008-04:00

Two points in response to Stan's listserv post earlier today.

First, I'm taking issue with the state of planning and permitting in town.

Sewer extensions and waste water capacity have a direct bearing on development potential throughout the commercial and village districts. Sewer extensions and wastewater treatment have been debated in town for decades. The sticking points have always revolved around infrastructure cost and impact on future development. These are real issues reflecting intelligent, reasoned yet differing points of view.

For those who have followed the debates, a sewer extension request on Route 5 South (or across the Ledyard Bridge) was inevitable. And yet, knowing it would come, we are ill-prepared as a town government and a community to actually engage it.

Stan is 100% right that King Arthur shouldn't have to wait years for this town to come up with a plan for commercial development on Route 5 South. I'll go further and say King Arthur shouldn't have to bear the entire cost of design and infrastructure for a sewer extension it seems obvious will also benefit King Arthur's Route 5 South neighbors in years to come. Leaving the entire cost to King Arthur means they build to suit their own needs based on their own cost sensitivity. We end up with infrastructure built to serve an ad hoc need we will later tap into and quite possibly need to upgrade for other users. A poor use of King Arthur's time and treasure and a poor use of our own as well.

We also continue a pattern of ad hoc development decisions that make a mockery out of the planning and permitting process. No one plans for or designs sprawl -- it's the result of many incremental development decisions which eventually overburden infrastructure and alter the entire character of a landscape. Many of those decisions -- including here in Vermont -- are greased by developer offers to fund infrastructure improvements themselves and arguments that it's unfair to change the rules after a history of permitting ad hoc development on abutting properties. In this context, I think, Stan's "what's not to like?" approach may be both short-sighted and, uh, breezy.

As Stan points out, we are very fortunate to have our main development pressure in this instance being exerted by a very conscious and forward-thinking company that has demonstrated real sensitivity to its physical setting. So let's engage them and help each other create a plan for this stretch of town that can be a long-term home to King Arthur and businesses like them before we start facing less benevolent developers.

And yet, King Arthur first floated the idea of a sewer extension with town officials last autumn. To my knowledge, in the interim, there has been no effort to initiate a public discussion of the impacts and opportunities such an extension might pose. We've failed to plan adequately for this scale of development on Route 5 South. We've now let seven or eight months pass since this specific project hit the public radar and, to my knowledge, made no progress engaging the longer term implications of this sewer extension proposal. The answer is not "King Arthur are good people so what's there to talk about?"

My second point concerns rhetoric.

For a decade now, public discourse in this town has been marred by ridicule and dismissiveness towards opposing points of view. My tolerance for ridicule and dismissive comments may be lower than most, but it's not just a question of gentility and manners.

Example: I may not agree with a lot of what Stuart Richards says, but I think painting him as "anti-growth" glosses over the details of his concerns without much effort to understand them. Am I "anti-growth" because I think what I've expressed in the prior paragraphs? Am I the same "anti-growth" as Stuart Richards? What if Stuart thinks I'm "pro-growth?" Does this make Stan "pro-growth" without exception?

The tags are stupid because they are unexpressive. We are not just binary beings going through life defined as pro- or anti- this or that. Efforts to cast us in these roles are lazy attempts to make decisions feel black-and-white when, at least in my experience, they tend to the gray spectrum. Reducing someone's point of view to pro- or anti- anything is an act of indifference, or worse, contempt.

I'm a big fan of disagreement because it forces people to think -- about their own point of view and about others'.

I can't countenance dismissiveness.

King Arthur Qualified

2010-05-28T09:30:00.005-04:00

I have nothing against King Arthur or their proposed sewer extension to support further business expansion. Nevertheless, I don't share the breezy lack of concern regarding unforeseen consequences expressed on the listserv these past few days.

From where I sit, this is yet another ad hoc development decision which begs the question: What's our plan?

If you follow the link above, you'll see I'm something of a broken record on this topic. If you attended the most recent public forum on the proposed town plan revisions, you'll know my concerns on this count have only deepened, but rather than beat a dead horse again, here's a positive agenda perhaps the Planning Commission, Selectboard, or (more appropriately?) an ad hoc committee could pursue:

Let's develop a smart growth plan for Route 5 South which balances commercial development, residential and recreational uses, and establishes clear rules for all these uses that are modestly aimed to guide future development in a transparent and responsible manner.

Here are some questions for that effort to grapple with - in no particular order:

1. Wouldn't a community-supported sewer access for a Route 5 South commercial district -- designed to support and facilitate what the community decides are appropriate commercial uses and densities -- be better than a privately funded and conceived sewer extension created to support a single parcel within that commercial district?

2. Shouldn't there be a conscious effort to plan for and design build-out scenarios for this commercial district that might help manage the increase in vehicular traffic that will surely result and avoid the sprawl/congestion that often occur when this type of development is pursued ad hoc by individual land owners?

3. If the town adopts a commercial district development plan, sewer access and the increased density/development value of those parcels zoned commercial in that district will be a windfall to current owners. Shouldn't the town tap this one time windfall to establish a transfer of development rights system that might be used to offset the loss of development capacity our town plan seeks to impose on rural land owners in the name of open space, conservation goals and scenic routes?

4. Wouldn't a deliberate effort to create a sensible commercial district in this specific location be a useful acid test for our existing land use regulations so we can wrestle with existing and potential uses against what those regulations actually permit? For example, would our farmer's market be permitted under our existing regulations if it wasn't already there?

5. Shouldn't the Upper Valley Events Center be rezoned commercial so they can drop the facade of being a grandfathered quasi-commercial/educational use in a zoned residential district and get on with the business of being a business?

6. Above all, isn't the entire point to balance individual land owner development interests with community development interests? That can only be done with a transparent and deliberate conversation about the competing interests involved.

King Arthur Flour -- for reasons they can best explain -- has pursued this development below the radar to the degree they have been allowed to do so. Considering the listserv references to "anti-growth" and "anti-business" townspeople living in the past, they may have felt it wise to do so. I think this is unfortunate.

First, I don't see how "anti-growth" and "anti-business" townspeople living in time warps ever come around without an opportunity to be heard and to hear out "pro-growth" "pro-business" and modern points of view. We're all taxpayers after all and many of us imagine ourselves living here for decades to come. Don't disenfranchise those with whom you disagree -- whatever satisfaction it may confer in the short term, it just doesn't work in the long run.

Second, if an ad hoc King Arthur sewer extension goes through against substantial opposition, it's the next ad hoc development on Route 5 South that will pay the price -- hardly good planning or smart growth.

Letter to Selectboard re: Point of Order

2010-03-24T17:20:00.002-04:00

March 24, 2010

To the Selectboard -- Town of Norwich:

I was very troubled by the Moderator’s announcement -- made at Town Meeting this year -- that no discussion of pending litigation would be permitted that evening.

When we reached the warned article concerning “other business” I rose to question the legal authority that might prevent us from discussing pending litigation at Town Meeting.

In response, the Moderator read the following letter, received from the Secretary of State’s Office:

Unless there is a warned article on the warning, which I would doubt, the moderator should rule any attempt to discuss litigation as not germane and out of order.

If voters want to ask its selectboard about pending litigation, the proper request would be to the Chair of the board to place it on a board agenda. Again, I would expect that the town attorney may advise the board that pending litigation cannot be discussed with the public.

Best Regards,

Kathleen S. DeWolfe
Director of Elections & Campaign Finance
Office of the Secretary of State

After further correspondence with Kathleen DeWolfe and researching the relevant Vermont statutes, I believe her advice in this instance was a matter of misunderstanding on her part and incorrect as a matter of law.

I am writing today to clarify what I believe to be the governing law for our Town Meeting. I further ask the Selectboard to publicly disavow the substance and implication of the Moderator’s announcement at this year’s Town Meeting as an improper restraint on our right, as townspeople, to discuss the town’s business at our annual Town Meeting.

At the outset, three points:

First, this year’s Moderator, Terry Boone, is a friend and I am confident his ruling in this matter was a good faith response to the apparent authority of the communication from the Secretary of State’s Office. I am challenging the authority of the communication, not in any way denigrating the Moderator in this instance.

Second, I have no dog in the Bragg Hill assessment fight. I had no intention to address that litigation at Town Meeting or here today. I am only interested in defending the right of Norwich residents -- pro and con -- to discuss that and any other town business at our Town Meeting.

Third, as I stated at Town Meeting when questioning the Moderator, I believe it would be wise for Selectboard members and town officials party to any pending litigation to refrain from commenting during any Town Meeting discussion of pending litigation. I believe the Selectboard should state as much publicly if such a discussion occurs in the future. While it may be uncomfortable for these town officials to sit silently by while these discussions take place, it is the townspeoples’ business to consider town policy if they so choose. This is a fundamental democratic right integral to the entire concept of Town Meeting and I find it ominous there has been so little reaction to its curtailment.

At a Special Town Meeting on July 2, 1983, the townspeople of Norwich adopted voting by Australian ballot for all town and school warrant articles. The article authorizing Australian balloting itself stated that Town Meeting would be held the night prior to voting "for discussion only of the various articles on the warning agenda."

Since that time, our practice has been to hold Town Meeting on the Monday night before Tuesday voting. Our Town Meeting is presided over by a moderator who -- up until this year -- ends the Monday evening session by adjourning or recessing Town Meeting until the following morning when voting takes place. This is all consistent with existing Vermont law, specifically 17 VSA §2640(b) which states,

When a town so votes, it may thereafter start its annual meeting on any of the three days immediately preceding the first Tuesday in March at such time as it elects and may transact at that time any business not involving voting by Australian ballot or voting required by law to be by ballot and to be held on the first Tuesday in March. A meeting so started shall be adjourned until the first Tuesday in March.

and 17 VSA §2640(c) which further states,

Notwithstanding section 2508 of this title [limiting proximity of electioneering to polling places], public discussion of ballot issues and all other issues appearing in the warning, other than election of candidates, shall be permitted on that day at the annual meeting, regardless of the location of the polling place.

This is also consistent with 17 VSA §2680(g) which states,

Whenever a municipality has voted to adopt the Australian ballot system of voting on any public question or budget, except the budget revote as provided in subsection (c) of this section, the legislative body shall hold a public informational hearing on the question by posting warnings at least 10 days in advance of the hearing in at least two public places within the municipality and in the town clerk's office. The hearing shall be held within the 10 days preceding the meeting at which the Australian ballot system is to be used. The hearing under this subsection may be held in conjunction with the meeting held under subsection 2640(c), in which case the moderator shall preside.

Together, these statutes recognize that a town such as Norwich, after adopting Australian balloting, may combine the “public informational hearing” required under 2680(g) above with an extension of Town Meeting to any of the three days immediately preceding actual voting as per 2640(b) and (c), or in our case, to the night prior to voting.

Read together, the statutes clearly anticipate that our Monday evening Town Meeting “may transact at that time any business not involving voting; (§2640(b))” shall permit “public discussion of ballot issues and all other issues appearing in the warning, other than election of candidates;” (§2640(c)) and shall include “a public informational hearing on [any public question or budget]” entrusted to voting by Australian ballot (§2680(g)).

It might be argued that the more specific provisions of 2640(c), perhaps limiting discussion to “ballot issues and all other issues appearing in the warning” could be construed to limit the discussion of pending litigation such as was argued this year, on the grounds that there was no specific warned article questioning pending litigation. This argument fails for several reasons.

First, the preceding section, 2640(b), clearly anticipated that participants at Town Meeting held the night prior would have the authority to “transact at that time any business not involving voting.” Unless Subsection C explicitly limited the scope of the preceding subsection, that broader statement of authority should be given effect.

Moreover, 2640(c) is clearly intended to carve out an exception to the provisions of 2508 which would otherwise forbid political debate of these matters in the same place where voting by Australian ballot takes places. As such, it is simply not concerned with the broad statement of authority made in 2640(b) and thus cannot be intended to constrain it.

Lastly, this year, as in the past, we traditionally include a warned article -- Article 26 this year -- to “[t]ransact any other business that may legally come before the annual Norwich Town Meeting.” Therefore, even if we were somehow constrained to discussing only those “issues appearing in the warning,” we have the authority to discuss “any other business” under this warned article.

To conclude, I cannot find any legal basis to restrict our rights, as townspeople, to discuss pending litigation or any other town business at our Town Meeting.

The opinion stated by the Secretary of State’s Office addresses whether a matter not specifically warned is germane -- an important concept where articles are voted from the floor and adequate public notice of what is to be voted is a concern. We vote by Australian ballot. I discuss this further at http://norwichnavel.blogspot.com/2010/03/point-of-order.html and will spare you that repetition here.

Unless the Selectboard can offer specific legal authority to the contrary, I ask the Selectboard to publicly disavow the Moderator’s Town Meeting admonition regarding pending litigation and reaffirm our right, as voters, to discuss town business at Town Meeting, even where town officials may be constrained from participating in those discussions.

School Choice and Taxes

2010-03-07T13:55:00.003-05:00

I can't help noting the irony of Eileen's post this AM: "Willow School K-3 Open House Sunday" juxtaposed upon much hand-wringing at Town Meeting over falling enrollment at Marion Cross School (and our similarly ironic relief that Norwich' proportionate share of Dresden taxes is lower due to fewer Norwich kids in Dresden schools).

Knowing Eileen and knowing the two excellent teachers behind the Willow School, I think it's important to recognize that MCS is not and cannot be the one-size-fits-all best option for all our residents' children. Parents have many choices, including home schooling. Before criticizing those families who choose private school alternatives to MCS, it's worth considering the odd injustice those families face paying private tuition on top of paying their property taxes supporting MCS.

Basing public education funding on local property taxes raises all kinds of strange inequities, particularly as a greater proportion of our school budgets are dictated by decisions made far beyond our own community. A less obvious, but ultimately more difficult, problem is how deeply invested we are in a model for public education that dates back a century ago and may be reaching its legal and fiscal limits.

On the legal front, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris exposed the tenuous legal principles limiting school voucher programs. Voucher advocates for both religious and secular private schooling have been aggressively litigating to pry the door opened by Zelman wide open. A logical conclusion for this line of cases -- woven together with advocacy for school funding based more broadly than local property taxes -- is very likely a system based on vouchers for all children and our public schools being but one of any number of competitors for those voucher-supported students.

On the fiscal side here in Vermont, it's hard not to be discouraged at the local costs incurred by the principle of equal education opportunity enunciated in Brigham, codified in Act 60 and modified further in Act 68. The political pressure to limit local authority over spending appears to be growing as more voters question the statewide school funding formula. It's probably simply a matter of time before Montpelier and any number of other state capitols demand and get the authority to negotiate union contracts statewide on cost containment and insurance purchasing power grounds. At that point, our local school are no longer local schools in the current sense; they'll be state schools and local private schools may reflect local education values more accurately.

The bottom line is we're in a mess that is only partially due to our CLA, the current economy, and our own decisions. I was distressed to hear the accusations back and forth at Town Meeting implying bad faith on the part of volunteer committee and board members; suggesting that votes made on fiscal grounds expressed a lack of support for education; or that our budget issues could best be addressed by teachers taking voluntary pay cuts. The problems we face aren't that simple and the solutions certainly won't be that easy.

Point of Order

2010-03-01T23:57:00.000-05:00

I have a question that I hope listserv readers might help me understand from this evening's information Town Meeting.

At the outset, we were admonished by the Moderator that there was to be no discussion of pending litigation. Any attempt to raise an issue of pending litigation would be ruled non-germane and cut off. I don't have any dogs in any litigation currently before the Selectboard so this didn't impact me personally, but it bothers me to be told the citizens of this town cannot raise concerns about pending litigation at an informational town meeting. When the traditional "other business" article was read, I rose to ask the Moderator what the legal basis for this gag order might be. He read a memo from the Secretary of State's office stating the issues of pending litigation not warned in an article is not germane, so must be raised at a Selectboard meeting where it can be placed on the Selectboard's agenda.

I think this is an incorrect statement of the law when applied to informational town meetings, but I'm interested to hear any defense of this rule.

"Germaneness" as a procedural concept for meetings run pursuant to Roberts Rules, applies to amendments to warned articles. The idea is to avoid having a warned article amended so drastically that it no longer expresses what the original article was meant to raise. A non-germane amendment risks depriving voters of having a reasonable opportunity to know what articles would be voted on at town meeting. An example would be a warned article asking whether to reduce the Town Manager's salary by 5% being amended at town meeting to ask whether the town should do away with a town manager form of government entirely. Voters have the right to know -- weeks in advance -- the scope of questions raised in the warned articles so they can decide how to they wish to vote and whether they even feel the need to show up.

We in Norwich did away with voting town meetings some time ago. Our town meeting is now strictly informational with no ability to vote, let alone amend, a warned article. The Secretary of State's opinion on pending litigation and the concept of germaneness don't make much sense in the context of a purely informational town meeting. While it may be foolish for a selectboard member to comment on pending litigation during an informational town meeting, it seems absurd to me to limit the townspeople's right to question the costs or benefits of pending litigation.

Academic and arcane, right?

Not really.

Later, during the school budget portion of the meeting, one resident spoke of the need for greater transparency in special education expenditures. There has been a struggle for several years now at the school board and SAU level over special education policy. To some, it appears the SAU has been particularly aggressive in litigating out-of-district placement issues (generally residential programs for young people who need services that exceed the capacities of our schools) -- referred to as "extraordinary special education expenditures" in the school budget. Litigation of these matters is particularly fraught as they invariably involve a young person in crisis, their family struggling to deal with the child's crisis, and the school district trying to balance budgets against the indeterminate potential for that child to harm his/her self or others. Real lives, real risks, real suffering in our schools, in our community, and sometimes a six-digit "extraordinary expense" figure in our school budget.

The SAU has employed a prominent special education attorney for several years now who has strenuously challenged many (most? all?) out-of-district placement requests made by parents of young people in our district. Is she doing a good job? Is she saving us money, curtailing illegitimate requests and making sure the districts' taxpayers' rights and interests are being protected? Or is she doing a poor job, milking the district for legal fees and simply prolonging the fiscal and emotional distress of the families involved when an out-of-district placement might have made more sense from the outset?

Now go ask the SAU or our school boards for our litigation expenses to contest out-of-district placements over the past year, five years, or past decade. Ask our school administrators and school board what our district policy is in determining whether to accept or challenge an out-of-district placement. You'll run into a wall of privacy concerns and find, as a result, that a significant portion of our school budget operates within a veritable black box. There aren't necessarily any villains here, just very difficult issues which no one seems at liberty to discuss in any significant way.

Yet, if I were a parent of a child needing services beyond what a traditional classroom allows, I would find the school budget discussions before voters at informational town meeting absolutely chilling. Special Education is an expense line. Extraordinary out-of-district placements are a fiscal setback. Can't I ask how much money our taxpayers are paying lawyers to litigate out-of-district special ed placements? Can't I ask how much money our school administrators and school boards feel they've saved us by defeating improper requests? What if I think our litigation posture is short-sighted and our attorneys may be milking the SAU or town for fees? Non-germane? How do we inform voters about our budgets without disclosing litigation expenses, policies that may predispose us to inordinate litigation, or allowing voters to express general opinions about whether they feel a matter in litigation makes sense for the town?

A year ago, those at informational town meeting heard individuals argue both sides of pending (still pending) property appraisal litigation. What's changed and when did speaking one's mind about town business and taxpayer expense become non-germane?

King Arthur Flour and Sewer

2009-11-25T10:33:00.003-05:00

I've received a wide range of emails on my earlier post to the listserv. They range from accusing me of being naively incendiary to soliciting my help in stopping the sewer extension, to puzzling over whether I'm pro or con the proposed extension.

I don't know enough about the specifics to form a clear opinion. To my mind, the question isn't what I think of this project; it's whether this project is consistent with the planning and permitting goals of the community.

I've said a hundred times that I feel our planning and permitting approach in this town is broken and needs to be reconsidered. This is not a matter of blaming anyone. We're planning and permitting like many of the communities around us. I just think we can do a much better job in a way that engages townspeople more constructively.

I think it is unfair to individual applicants (Housing Vermont and the attempt to locate affordable housing at Agway property; Simpson and the gateway property; Upper Valley Events Center and the old dentists office on Rte 5; now KAF and the sewer extension) that we legislate development parameters without any clear sense of the impacts upon individual land owners. I'm all for scenic preservation, affordable housing, a commercial district and adaptive reuse. I'm bothered that we continue to approach both planning and permitting with this top-down perspective that leads to inconsistent enforcement and ad hoc rezoning to try to mitigate what many might feel are onerous, illogical restrictions on individual land owners.

Should King Arthur Flour get a sewer extension from the Hartford line? If we want to encourage continued growth of their operations here in Norwich, then yes. If we want to encourage further commercial development in the Route 5 South corridor, then we should be looking to help KAF extend the line so it can serve more businesses in that area. If we're concerned that this line will eventually be extended to downtown Norwich, leading to a very different growth pattern, then the answer is probably no, but that should be addressed in our Town Plan and our regulations. The question should always be, what does the community want, collectively, and how can we, as a community achieve those goals?

The Planning Commission is in the process of revising our Town Plan after recently revising our zoning regulations. I've rankled their membership enough over the years to leave off what I think of the current revision effort. I hope townspeople will try to get up to speed and engage in the town plan revision meetings and the details of the KAF application as it becomes more public.

The Best and the Brightest

2009-11-21T00:17:00.003-05:00

As President Obama reviews his options for continued American involvement in Aghanistan, I've been rereading David Halberstam's 1972 survey of our descent into Vietnam, "The Best and the Brightest."

One theme prevails in reading this history now nearly forty years after it was written. Halberstam's focus on the individual decision-makers feels misplaced. For all their talents and weaknesses, these men were not in control of events, let alone equal to them. They were the products of an earlier time, just as today's Administration is inevitably out of time. America's disastrous adventure in Vietnam was, by all historical measures, the inevitable product of a hugely complex political and social struggle which dwarfed the men who led us into full-scale war as surely as it dwarfed the millions of casualties which resulted.

The American political mood made it impossible for our elected leaders to find an exit strategy short of victory. The Vietnamese themselves made that victory impossible.

The lesson here for Afghanistan is quite simple.

We can be certain our Afghan adversaries will make victory impossible. Their advantages are profound. They have more at stake and, unlike us, they have nowhere else to go. We will tire of this war. We deceive ourselves and our allies to suggest otherwise. We consign thousands and thousands of as-yet unblemished bodies and minds to the meat grinder of a campaign we cannot finish. It is time to declare victory and go home.

Sadly, of course, we won't.

The Obama Administration has a second term to think about. Their political opponents will criticize whatever the Administration chooses to do, but most certainly any strategy that "leaves Afghanistan to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda."

We the People dither. Afghanistan is a righteous cause for a handful of reasons: We were attacked and have a right to defend ourselves from further attacks; the Taliban viciously oppressed the Afghan people, particularly their women; having created a power vacuum, we have a moral duty to help rebuild the country; leaving short of victory emboldens our enemies and discourages our allies. All true, to some degree, and all irrelevant when one acknowledges the cost in lives and limbs against the absolute inevitablity of our eventual withdrawal without achieving any one of those goals.

Halberstam would say our fate is in the hands of those decision-makers in war council at the White House, as though the outcome were actually in the balance. I think our fate is already sealed by the short-sighted, contradictory, and ultimately naive impulses which possess our body politic and will take generations to gestate. I would love to see Barack Obama prove me wrong.

Shoot Us All

2009-11-07T23:28:00.002-05:00

I stand corrected.

Jim Thurber was indeed asked to stop posting to this list in an email from Bob Raiselis a couple days ago.

Now what?

One side of me says this is a shame. Someone complained enough about Jim Thurber's posts that ValleyNet felt they needed to take some action. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and if enough listserv participants counter-complain, his posting rights will likely be reinstated. We can go on and on about whether Jim Thurber should be voted off the island. The bottom line to me is that I have a choice whether to read Jim Thurber, Steve Thoms, or the Valley News for that matter. Let them write and let people vote with their eyes. I hope Bob Raiselis will relent.

For those who want to hang ValleyNet in effigy, I would be interested to hear how a community non-profit should handle complaints of abuse such as these. I don't see an easy answer, but I think a solution will prove itself. If censorship really becomes an issue then readers will go elsewhere. If snarky comments, snide remarks and angry emails about prolixity or naivete become too common, readers will go elsewhere. If people go elsewhere, the point of a community listserv is lost -- not what ValleyNet or most readers can possibly desire.

Another side of me says this is all too precious to contemplate. There are people being maimed and killed in our names in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Dan Weintraub isn't the only person who sincerely believes our economic future is under dire threat. There are people going hungry and sleeping in their cars tonight within a few miles of us. I love to hear myself verbalize as much as anyone, but I struggle to see clear villains in this matter.

ValleyNet's trying their level best to accommodate a wide variety of interests and uses for an avowed public purpose. Give them credit for the attempt and perhaps a bit more understanding for the difficulty of their position responding to abuse complaints from readers. Jim Thurber likes this list and some people apparently don't like that he now lives in Colorado. In the big scheme of things, we're talking annoyances here, not capital crimes. How about a little more tolerance and a little less vitriol.

Shooting the Messenger

2009-11-07T13:27:00.001-05:00

I encourage ValleyNet's critics in this matter to develop a set of rules to govern such a public forum, launch their forum, and live by their rules for a few years. Between trolls, commercial interests, and hot-heads any set of rules will be hard-pressed at times. I appreciate Bob Raiselis' efforts to keep listserv policy enforcement/discussion off the list itself. I realize that authority can be abused in the wrong hands, but have yet to hear any complaint that any opinion or viewpoint has been suppressed from this list. Many public forums include a separate list for discussion of list/posting policy and if anyone wishes to initiate such a list, I would be very surprised if Valley Net would refuse to host it.

I simply disagree that ValleyNet has somehow"forfeited all credibility as a discussion host." When Vicky Fish launched this list more than three years ago, there was nothing else like it in town. Before that, the Selectboard squabbled about who could use the town email lists and for what purposes; the factions in town government had their own email lists to reinforce their own views on things; and the Valley News was the Valley News. This list has survived and grown as an open forum without advertising, spam jams, or any serious questions about ValleyNet's role as host until this week. Does ValleyNet, as listserv host, have the capability to ruin it's community listserv's by suppressing viewpoints or blocking submissions? Yup. Any evidence it has or would like to do that?

I hope Norwich Pillory will contemplate whether he/she might be partaking a bit in the "intolerant and intemperate attacks" which -- as Jeff Doyle mentioned a couple weeks back -- might justify Norwich Pillory's feeling the need to post anonymously.

Watt Alexander

- - - - -

Bob Raiselis says "keep the discussion centered on the town rather than the
town discussion list" even though the town discussion list has become a town
issue. In point of fact, Bob has become a town issue. But we are not allowed
to mention that. And since he is hosting the discussion and can toss anyone
out of the discussion at his own discretion without any permissible public
recourse, we are supposed to keep the discussion focused on a topic that we
are not allowed to mention.

I don't know how the rest of you feel about this but my sentiment is that
valleynet has effectively forfeited all credibility as a discussion host. I
hope also that the various subscribers to the Norwich listserv who have
advocated the ouster, suppression, or silencing of participants in this
forum will contemplate the fruits of their intolerant and intemperate
attacks.

Oh yes, Bob, please feel free to toss me off the list. But I won't promise
not to publish any email you send me, so if it is truly private, please just
keep it to yourself. (There's a double-bind for you in return for the one
you tried to impose on us.)

Your anonymous pal,
Norwich Pillory

Conversations That Matter

2009-10-27T23:16:00.002-04:00

This is a belated response to Jeff Doyle's comments of a couple weeks back:

In this sense, Norwich is like a dysfunctional family: it can't solve
its problems because it can't talk about them. I don't, however, think
the listserv is quite the right venue for a talking cure. Nor - for
different reasons - is town meeting. Nor are the select board
meetings.

I've been thinking a great deal about this because the Norwich
Historical Society is talking about how to make good on the "Community
Center" on its sign - and so I've been thinking about what I
(personally) think is missing from our community. I'm not at all sure
that the NHS is the one to provide it, but I do think we need more
opportunities for "face time" in Norwich in which citizens can have
conversations that matter. The town eating days are a great example of
that kind of critical conversation - but I think we need something
perhaps less structured and certainly more frequent. I'm not sure
what.

I'd suggest we, as a community, rethink the town plan process as an excellent opportunity to engage townspeople in "conversations that matter." Under the auspices of the Planning Commission, the town plan review process could become an on-going conversation about various aspects of the town's future -- the subject being concrete planning goals, but the process leading to more constructive conversations among townspeople as we all become more acquainted with other points of view.

While state law requires that the PC approve an updated town plan every few years, there's nothing in the law that says it has to be conducted the way we have historically revised out town plan. I don't mean to criticize our current or past Planning Commission members, many of whom have knocked themselves out to do their best with an awkward task. I'm simply saying a town plan can and should be a living, breathing process of public dialogue on specific tasks within the broad chapters of the existing town plan -- a continuing dialogue regardless of the town plan revision deadline. It's a very different approach that hasn't found traction in the past:

http://norwichnavel.blogspot.com/2005/05/open-letter-to-sbpccc-re-big-picture.html

I differ from Jeff's suggestion that more frequent, less structured conversations are the answer. In my experience, it's the hard work of trying to understand a specific issue and then having to take a stand on it that really makes the difference.

By the way, we will be starting work on the 2010 Town Eating Day soon and are always interested to hear suggestions/constructive criticism about how it might be improved.

Dialogue (Norwich listserv)

2009-10-15T23:21:00.000-04:00

Quick reply to Maureen's post from a few minutes ago. I'm out of town the rest of this week so won't be responding for a few days -- so please don't misconstrue silence.

Maureen asks who I think is superimposing these values. I'm trying to sat that we all are. We all use terms like dialogue and community, but we don't often critically question what we mean ourselves. It's probably human nature that when I bemoan a lack of dialogue I'm often really complaining that others don't agree with me. A sense of a lack of community may really be a sense of not comfortably belonging oneself, most often prompted by a realization that a number of other people we live near disagree with us on some seemingly fundamental values.

At its best, active engagement in the democratic process should be a matter of self-discovery. As we confront the unlike-minded we should be humbled by our own provinciality, finding with each conversation and each constructive compromise that we never saw an issue from these other points of view because we never thought to ask before. Non one ever talks about that aspect of self-governance.

In a similar vein, we seldom honestly discuss the roots of our political predicament. We are defined not by a shared sense of community or values, but by the basic legal facts of our property. You and I are Norwich residents by dint of our being property owners and thus taxpayers in this political entity. My wife and I were married and settled here based on our own personal projections of what life in this town might mean. Every household here is a different story with many different values and often conflicting goals. Yet we're all granted the right to vote here due to our physical location and our taxpaying obligation.

And yet Jeff's posts seeking a more constructive and thoughtful way to engage one another eloquently express aspirations many, perhaps most of us share. We want to belong, we want to feel we've contributed, we want to be heard, we want to understand what is going on, and we're all afraid, to some extent, that the things we value in our lives here may be under threat. That fear drives the shrillness of our political debate and often overwhelms the impulses to belong, contribute, and understand.

So I'm just saying let's be realistic about what we're after and how we think we can get it. The first step, in my opinion, is to take a hard look at our own projections and question whether we're ready to listen and try to understand other views that appear to frustrate those aspirations. As people become more realistic about what's at stake and the impossibility of achieving most of these goals through this year's selectboard majority or next years warrant article, maybe we begin to rethink the role and purpose of the political entities we have inherited. Warned town meetings reflect a long-standing political and legal struggle that has nothing to do with dialogue or good decision-making. A selectboard has authority to promulgate legislative policy but can choose many different ways to exercise that authority. It' a real tragedy that a succession of elected members and vocal partisans have fallen into a pattern this past dozen years which primarily serves Valley News circulation. With Town Eating Day, we've struggled to create a few different forums which we hope might lead volunteer committees, elected officials and townspeople to rethink their roles. It's been very tough going and it's not at all clear whether it will succeed. I agree 100% that while writing to listservs can start conversations, dialogue requires face time and the time to listen. I also agree that listserv postings can silence more readily than they can prompt conversation.

Busy List (Norwich listserv)

2009-10-15T17:22:00.000-04:00

Jeff Doyle raises some interesting issues that I can't resist addressing.

I don't agree with those who suggest Norwich is somehow exceptional either in our incivility or our dysfunction. If anything, we may have a disproportionate share of people who expect to get their own way, but it takes a selective reader of the Valley News to imagine we are unique in our troubles or our difficulty addressing them.

I'll venture to say that most of our political problems this past decade are rooted in the inevitable tension between representative democracy and professional bureaucracy. Elected and appointed volunteers -- like most any committee -- have a terrible time supervising professional staff. Do professional staff serve communities or the elected and appointed volunteers who are their bosses? Selectboard members are answerable to a different constituency than town managers. SAU superintendants live a completely different day-to-day existence than school board members; responding to different points of friction, assessing their own performance against utterly different criteria, and operating on completely different time horizons. We pay no attention to the difficult, perhaps contradictory role faced by our professional administrators as they try to do a job on the basis of goals and values articulated by people who may be relegated to a minority in the next election cycle or resign to get back to their "real" lives. Professional administration is fundamentally anti-democratic and no one ever acknowledges the fact. We expect our administrators to possess a kind of omniscience we ourselves -- being voters and taxpayers -- feel no compunction about lacking ourselves. And we ignore the Darwinian inevitability that civil administration attracts and promotes people who possess a skill set often at odds with -- even downright antagonistic to -- what we commonly hold to be democratic and political virtues. Add some forceful personalities to the mix and you have news. I could go on at length, but Virginia Close intimidates me.

I also can't agree with Jeff's statement that we suffer "from a gulf between what can be said out loud, and what is said in hushed tones between like-minded friends." In my experience, at least, like-minded friends tend to reinforce a narrow-minded perspective. I've never once found a selectboard member or other citizen unwilling to share their views when asked. Some have struck me as close-minded and others distasteful, but I've always found they will say out loud much of what they think on the issues of the day. Make the time to chat with an Alison May or Sarah Nunan and you'll find an intelligent person who cares a great deal about what they believe. You may not agree, but you'll likely understand much better why they do the things they do. If you want to feel more a part of this community, seek out the unlike-minded and take the time to listen to what their unlike mind is up to. Maybe they'll do a bit of listening themselves.

Finally, why do we superimpose values such as dialogue, understanding, and consensus upon warned public meetings? That's simply not their purpose or design. I would like to think there is a place for meaningful dialogue, understanding and even consensus about how we govern ourselves, but we search in vain looking for it in warned public meetings and a listserv. My gender betrays me.

- - - - -

My problem with Norwich politics is that what passes for openness and
transparency is often little more than a kind of verbal arbitrage in
which innuendo and prevarication are played off against the limits of
decorous speech. A problem which is only exacerbated (in my opinion)
by well meaning commenters who decry the town's supposed lack of
civility, but fail to see that this very civility is being manipulated
at the expense of community. I think we suffer not from a lack of
civility, but an excess of decorum. We suffer from a gulf between what
can be said out loud, and what is said in hushed tones between
like-minded friends.

In this sense, Norwich is like a dysfunctional family: it can't solve
its problems because it can't talk about them. I don't, however, think
the listserv is quite the right venue for a talking cure. Nor - for
different reasons - is town meeting. Nor are the select board
meetings.

Jeff

Special Meeting Notices

2009-05-06T16:24:00.000-04:00

I'm afraid I've become a perennial crank, but I want to express a concern regarding the recent notices posted here and on the town email lists:

THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE NORWICH SELECTBOARD
Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Time: 5:00 PM
Place: Tracy Hall, Multipurpose Room
Agenda: VLCT Workshop on the Roles of the Manager and of the Selectboard and Leadership and Management Roles of the Selectboard

-- and --

A Community Discussion on Norwich Town Highways & Community Facilities
Wednesday, May 6 at 7 PM
Multi-Purpose Meeting Room
Tracy Hall

TOPICS:
Highways • Roads • Bike Paths • Trails
Improvements • Maintenance • New Facilities
Park & Ride

Recreation Facilities
Playing Fields • Pool • Access to River
New facilities

Other Community Facilities

PURPOSE:
An opportunity for community discussion in an informal atmosphere with all ideas and comments welcome
Provide guidance to Town
Provide ideas for the Norwich Town Plan

Basic information will be available on projects underway or planned for immediate future

- - - -

These are both important and useful meetings which directly address persistent concerns/conflicts in town. I applaud the effort to put them together and hope as many interested residents as possible can attend. I'm concerned that public notice for both of these meetings went out Monday afternoon, barely 48 hours prior to the meetings. I'm not interested in open meetings law implications or theories about cabals, etc. I'm simply concerned that a couple days is pretty short notice and will necessarily mean some people will not attend due to other commitments and/or not reading the notices in time. There may very well be good reasons why these notices could not go out earlier, but the net effect is a further gap between Tracy Hall and the rest of us -- not anyone's intent.

Every year, Town Eating discussion ultimately arrives at the question of how to help townspeople become more involved. Every year, some committee or town official takes it on the chin unfairly for decisions made at public sessions by people who weren't in attendance when the decision was discussed. There's no simple answer, but diligent efforts to give people a couple weeks warning of important events is certainly part of it. Businesses looking to drum up sales or raise their profile do this pretty well -- giving people plenty of warning and trying to build momentum as the event nears. It's extra work and more effort, but that's what it takes.

As a town government, we lack the profit motive and clear managerial focus to prompt that effort. It's not merely a matter of Selectboard policies. It's really a question of our political culture and a basic recognition that self-government at this scale is an on-going dialogue which, though time-consuming, is good in itself. It's an approach I gather our police chief and town manager have both internalized to some degree as they both continue to make extraordinary efforts to engage the community. As a town, as a community, we can do a better job of making the time for that dialogue and taking the time to maximize opportunities for as many as possible to participate.

Gay Marriage (continued)

2009-04-08T08:31:00.008-04:00

Ruth Sylvester and Don Kreis just about cover the "pro" arguments in favor of gay marriage, now a legal fact in Vermont (and -- tentatively -- Iowa). I can't argue with their positions because I agree with their goals. I only question the means.

In my opinion, widespread tolerance of homosexuality in American culture -- like tolerance of divorce, Catholicism, and racial diversity -- is simply a matter of time. How much time will be a function of political and legal strategy by both proponents and opponents.

I'm concerned that, by focusing on "gay marriage" rather than equal rights, we are prolonging the battle potentially by many years and at significant cost.

Specifically, how will those states respond where a majority may be hostile to the concept of extending marriage to homosexual couples?

Amendments to state constitutions are one proven method. Iowa may prove to be an important battleground for that approach.

Federal courts will be hard-pressed to adjudicate these conflicts and the US Supreme Court will eventually have their say. Justice Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence v. Texas is an instructive primer to the constitutional contours likely to be applied throughout the federal courts. I simply cannot envision Kennedy's equal protection rationale being extended to gay marriage by this iteration of our Supreme Court.

Finally, there may be a federal constitutional amendment campaign restricting marriage to heterosexual relationships.

I am concerned that all of these legal and political battles will now likely revolve around the question of marriage, rather than the question of equal rights. I think that debate plays to the hands of those implacably opposed to gay marriage. We'll see.

Ruth's point about the importance of words and social recognition is well taken. I appreciate the emotional, visceral importance of this issue to many people who have experienced decades marginalized. Unfortunately, Ruth's point cuts both ways. The visceral, emotional content given the word "marriage" is a potent rallying cry for opponents as well. Their viewpoint is not simply a matter of bigotry, something perhaps more difficult to discern from this part of the country.

I also salute Ruth's broader point, suggesting that the road to equality is neither straight nor well-marked. A national struggle over gay marriage may ultimately be the best vehicle for establishing equal rights and broader tolerance. Or that struggle may ultimately result in a national separation of civil union and social marriage ceremony both Maureen and I are advocating. I am cognizant that the "Letter from the Birmingham Jail" critique of gradualism may apply to me here as well.

The adventure continues . . .

A Different Take on Gay Marriage

2009-03-22T22:12:00.006-04:00

It's been almost a decade since the unprecedented civil debate here in Vermont over the question of gay marriage, equal protection, and civil unions. I will always remember those evenings sitting in our kitchen listening to VPR live coverage of the statehouse open microphone sessions, as Vermont residents took turns speaking their minds for all to hear.

Struggling with my own thoughts, I came to appreciate the crucial difference between civil rights and social recognition.

Civil rights are those individual rights of conscience, choice, and self-determination which are protected by our laws. In Baker v. Vermont, the Vermont Supreme Court recognized the fundamenal inequity faced by homosexual couples who, as legally competent consenting adults, had chosen to share their lives with one another but whose choice had no legal protection. The Court, at that time, ruled that these couples must be given equal protection under the law, but left it to the legislature to devise the means.

The Baker decision framed the debate for the people of Vermont in terms of simple fairness. Whatever one's feelings regarding homosexuality in social or religious terms, one had to face a question of fundamental decency and, ultimately, privacy. If people choose to unite their lives as a household and family, how can our society deny them the right to share the complicated, difficult medical, financial, and end-of-life decisions that viscerally define household and family within broader society?

That argument is both effective and, ultimately, instructive. Doctrinal objections to homosexuality pale for most people in the face of the human choices and human struggle we all share, regardless of sexual orientation. Recognizing our common struggle with those fundamental questions begets greater tolerance of homosexuality and a better appreciation of the civil rights we all wish for ourselves and must afford one another. We saw as much here in Vermont as, in a matter of a couple years, civil unions went from being a controversial bill, to a contested law, to an election year rallying cry, to an uncontested matter of civil law.

That argument doesn't extend to gay marriage.

The problem is marriage. Marriage conflates the legal protections granted a couple's commitment to one another with the social recognition of that union.

Vermont's civil unions debate clearly delineated the two. Civil unions acknowledged that the state has no business discriminating against, or interfering in, the private decision to join oneself legally to another. Like the civil marriage license I got in Tracy Hall before we were married, civil unions do not guarantee that others will approve of that private decision, only that the state acknowledges that choice and the legal privileges that choice entails.

In terms of civil rights and equal protection, both Vermont and homosexual Americans would be better off if, rather than enshrining gay marriage, we instead extended civil unions to heterosexuals, replacing the marriage license with a civil union license. With a universal civil union license, both homosexual and heterosexual unions would be on an equal footing legally. The matter of social acceptance and definition of marriage would be left to the religious and social institutions those couples choose to sanctify and celebrate their union. Many faiths and institutions will allow "gay marriage" ceremonies and many will not. Whether a couple calls themselves married or partners is left to social norms, but the rights inherent in that choice to join together as a household and family would be supported by law.

It would also create the legal framework for extending similar rights throughout the country, not as an "assault on the institution of marriage," but as a matter of fairness and equality. That legal framework, firmly planted in the language and law of civil rights, can prevail across the country and in the federal courts. Both women's sufferage and the civil rights struggle of African-Americans followed a similar course, eventually recognizing that our laws should and must prohibit discrimination, but cannot legislate social acceptance.

In this respect, the gay marriage campaign can only become more entangled in the confusion between social acceptance and civil rights. The longer and harder proponents demand that the social institution of marriage be extended to gay couples as a matter of law, the more their campaign for civil rights will be stymied by a social backlash to an effort to redefine "marriage." A large number of states have already amended their constitutions to prohibit gay marriage. I don't see this Supreme Court striking down those state constitutional provisions on the basis that "marriage" is a fundamental right. I do see a real risk of the civil rights question being hijacked by social conservatives nationally and a long, acrimonious campaign to amend the federal constitution to prohibit gay marriage nationally.

The politics of gay marriage may work in Vermont, but it's a loser nationally. The civil rights struggle encapsulated in our pioneering civil unions law may not give good-hearted Vermonters the same sense of accomplishment, but it's a legal juggernaut that could and should eventually transform the nation. I am proud of my state for pioneering that path, forged from an open and difficult debate. This next step, I fear, is actually a step backwards.

Good Faith . . .

2009-03-06T11:16:00.000-05:00

I've been taking part in an interesting (to me at least) exchange over at "anemic volunteer":

http://anemicvolunteer.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-low-in-norwich.html

The anonymous anti-Alison May slogans were the spark for this exchange. As the discourse has developed, a familiar theme has emerged: How to participate "safely" in the public sphere.

This theme was echoed at Town Eating Day as people there discussed how disrespect and faction are disincentives to civic participation. One proposal floated would have the selectboard meet in open session, but without public comment, so the selectboard could engage with one another in a "safe" environment. The sincerity of that proposal speaks volumes to the state of public discourse in this town.

The "Anyone but Alison" sign author (AKA "Anemic Volunteer") articulates these concerns more personally:

The problem with "rational discourse" is that it is susceptible to being derailed by one party pretending not to understand what the other person says in order to derail the debate. It is the discursive analog to the old union trick of "working to rule." It happens all the time in dysfunctional families - and it happens in small town politics, and it happens at the national level as well. Reasonable discussion depends on good faith. But good faith is not always present.

Good faith is not always present, true enough. Worse, good faith is a fragile state, easily poisoned by even a hint of bad faith.

"Faith" is the operative term. Do we have faith in the good will of our neighbors sufficient to sustain us through their occasional bouts of ill will expressed out of frustration, impatience, or a loss of faith?

Anemic Volunteer suggests -- without meaning to offend -- that I have faith in public discourse because that discourse "works" for me:

Watt seems to think that I should have worked within the system, which is a natural perspective for those for whom the system works, and enjoy working it.

Without wishing to offend, I have to say statements such as these dumbfound me.

Where is this "system?" What am I doing that suggests I work effectively within it, or that it works for me?

This system is us, our legal authority to determine our own collective fate guaranteed by an exceptional Constitution and an enlightened state. What we do with that authority -- how we engage one another within those parameters -- is a rich and varied drama. At its best, it forces us to face our own provinciality as we learn to see other perspectives on an issue. At its worst, it forces us to face our own provinciality as we find we're unable or uninterested in seeing other perspectives. There is no end point, just the journey, because democracy must perpetually renew itself or lapse into something else. The journey is the reward. Faith in that journey, in the renewing capacity of engaging others with humility and respect, becomes good faith because there's really no other choice.

. . . and the Problem With Anonymity

2009-03-06T09:58:00.004-05:00

Listening to Anemic Volunteer's justifications for posting anonymous signs has helped me understand my real gripe with anonymity.

There is something fundamentally wrong with feeling entitled to show disrespect towards an individual while hiding behind anonymity or a pen name to protect oneself from a reciprocal, disrespectful, reply. Why are you entitled to indulge your frustration and impatience while seeking to exempt yourself from the frustration and impatience your statements provoke? It's unfair.

But it's also self-deceiving in my opinion.

When we cloak our identity we no longer speak as ourselves. Knowing we're buffered from accountability, we're free to indulge ourselves to an extent we're unlikely to reach otherwise. It is said that character is who you are when no one is looking. The social constraints of our public identities may well be our strongest incentives towards decency and mutual respect. Accountability in the public sphere ultimately rounds off our sharper edges and intimidates the lesser angels of our spirits. What better education can there be for an adult than the consciousness that one be well advised to consider carefully one's words in light of how others may hear them? Anonymity negates those cares, to our collective detriment.

Seniority Preamble (Cross-Post)

2009-03-05T09:25:00.006-05:00

(A comment to this blog post: http://anemicvolunteer.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-i-am-anemic-volunteer-part-1.html)

There is one important function to this seniority preamble in my opinion. It reveals whether an individual has lived in town long enough to have a reasonable chance of gathering why certain walls were built before advocating to tear them down.

The social necessity of testifying to one's term of residency is a nod to the cultural struggle occuring here in Norwich and throughout rural America to some degree. At its worst, that struggle flares up in the form of a Ruth Dwyer and the "Take Back Vermont" sloganeering of a few years back. At its core, the struggle is far less invidious, but probably much more important.

The rural agricultural traditions of this town and region are giving way to an urban/suburban ethos which values the physical rural character of the place, but runs roughshod over the rural character of the community and its institutions. In the past two decades this town has abandoned traditional town meeting, instituted a town manager form of government, and professionalized its police force and fire department. These changes aren't necessarily bad, but they signify a departure from the libertarian self-reliance and consensual interdependence of the community and institution which they replace.

I'm as guilty as anyone in town, spending some time on the town manager review committee and toiling for some years in an effort to bureaucratize land use regulation in town.

I don't think having spent my entire life in Norwich would have changed my views -- there have been plenty of life long residents behind these efforts as well.

I do think I've been around long enough to recognize some of the costs to these changes, enough to question those costs at least. And they aren't insignificant, but that's another topic.

2009-03-05T09:25:00.001-05:00

Political Signs

2009-03-03T11:34:00.004-05:00

An interesting question was raised this evening at Town Meeting by Jim Adler at the very end of the meeting. He rose to speak against a campaign sign which appeared in front of the Simpson townhouses Monday morning. The sign read something like "Alison May - Not!"

Jim spoke against the negative sentiment expressed in the sign, arguing that there was no place for negative campaigning such as this in a small town. He went on to state that he had removed the sign on his own initiative and, if anyone felt their First Amendment right to free speech had been infringed by that removal, they should speak to him directly.

I thought for a moment to rise and express my own view on the matter, particularly as Jim's statement received a good deal of applause, but it was late and people were ready to go home. So I'll state it here: I disagree with Jim on both points and believe his sentiments and actions ultimately illustrate why the First Amendment is necessary.

I first saw the sign in question driving out of town this morning. I do not endorse or support either Alison May or Sharon Racusin in this race so my susceptibility to partisan outrage may be rusty here. My first thought when I saw the sign was, "Does Sharon Racusin realize this sign is out here?" I don't know the answer but understand she is away.

To my mind, such a negative statement raised the question whether Sharon supported that kind of campaigning. If not, I felt, she had perhaps been done a disservice by whoever placed the sign. On the other hand, if Sharon actually supported that kind of campaigning, voters could make their own conclusions about her methods. The real menace of the sign was not, in my mind, the negative statement towards Alison May, but the implication Sharon Racusin was behind it -- an implication Sharon is not around to disavow or defend.

By removing the sign, Jim Adler unilaterally shut down a debate which might well have developed in a direction quite different from his initial, visceral reaction. Norwich voters have steadily punished divisive candidates over the past few election cycles and the possibility those signs might backfire would be a far stronger disincentive to that kind of campaigning than any scolding at the waning moments of town meeting might do. Instead we're left to decide between negative campaigning and self-anointed censors of political speech. Personally, I prefer negative campaigning because I can vote against them.

I also disagree with the implication of Jim's challenge to those who placed the signs -- taunting them to come speak to him directly if they felt he had infringed on their right to free speech. Want to know why Vermont towns continue to abandon open floor voting at town meeting for the secret Australian ballot? Look no further. The right to one's own conscience within a democracy does not easily survive the opprobrium of exposing one's views to the self-certain righteousness of certain neighbors. Jim may feel very strongly that there's no place for negative campaigning in Norwich, but why does that sentiment trump the sign-maker's apparently equally strong feeling that there's no place for Alison May on the Norwich Selectboard? In a nation of laws it does not. Our Constitution says protect the right to free speech and trust the people to determine whether the speaker is an idiot. Idiots can't keep their mouths shut for long. On the other hand, the power to silence deprives not simply the right to speak out, but also the right to hear what is said, think about it, and decide for oneself.

Jim, in my opinion you've acted rashly both in removing the sign and trumpeting the fact at town meeting. I hope some of the many who applauded you this evening will weigh in here to help me understand what was laudable about it.

And next time, please, instead of removing the sign that offends you, put up a sign right next to it saying, "Is this what we want in town government?" or "Is this leadership?" or maybe just a sign with an arrow pointing at the offender saying "I'm with stupid."

credit crisis for everyone

2009-02-24T00:26:00.003-05:00

An entertaining, fundamentally sound, animated illustration of the current credit crisis well worth your time:

http://www.crisisofcredit.com

When Does a Recession Become a Depression?

2008-11-27T17:13:00.009-05:00

Answer: A few months ago.

How do I know?

Let's look at the evidence.

1. Mere recessions are generally triggered by pricing shocks; depressions by the collapse of a credit bubble.

2. Mere recessions do not require the effective nationalization of the pillars of global finance.

3. The national housing industry has been in a full-fledged depression for more than two years now without any evidence it has reached bottom.

4. The usual market mechanisms for liquidating insolvencies are not operational.

Much is made of comparisons to various post-Great Depression downturns as guidance to the likely path of this current crisis. Most recent recessions have resulted from transitional shocks; anti-inflation monetary policy shifts in the 1950's, the oil price shocks of the 1970's, the interest rate squeeze on inflation leading to the "Carter/Volcker/Reagan Recession" of the early 1980's, the dot-com bubble bursting at the beginning of this decade. By definition, each of these recessions included a period of "negative growth" in the GDP and some degree of increased unemployment.

Statistically, we are well into another period of negative growth in our GDP and rising unemployment. Beyond this statistical similarity, the nomenclature of "recession" obscures a more profound difference. Like the Great Depression -- and unlike all of the interim recessions -- our current crisis is the result of a credit bubble bursting, characterized by a profound and pervasive insolvency throughout the international credit markets.

The scope of this systemic insolvency is breathtaking.

The United States alone has extended credit, loan guarantees, and cash infusions exceeding $1 trillion in an effort to head off the serial collapse of the world's largest financial institutions. While serial collapse has been forestalled for now, the scope of insolvency actually appears to be growing.

The pillars of US finance are generally not lending to one another except where compelled by the feds to do so.

Common sense suggests we are somewhere towards the beginning of a multi-year period of "negative growth" with no identifiable basis for recovery now in sight.

Consider the amount of time necessary to actually deleverage illiquid, loss mounting assets when there is no market for them. Unless these assets can be sold off to government, many will be held to maturity and swaps to cover risk of default will last as long. How can anyone determine the solvency of a financial institution under these circumstances? Under these circumstances, how can anyone imagine the private sector and traditional market forces can resolve this crisis?

The News Gets Worse

2008-11-25T09:15:00.005-05:00

I'm lying in bed with a temperature of 102' reading the business press on Citi II, the second unprecedented bailout of Citigroup in less than six weeks.

The federal government has now committed nearly $350 billion to Citigroup alone in direct capital infusions and guarantees on Citi's "toxic" and potentially toxic mortgage-backed securities portfolio. This is bad news - - despite the rosy reaction of stock markets around the world.

First, it is now obvious the Bush Adminsitration's ever-evolving "TARP" program was never up to the task. The federal government found it necessary to guarantee over $300 billion in Citigroup debt-backed assets to make Citigroup sufficiently credit-worthy to borrow from other banks -- its only hope of remaining a going concern as an international bank. As the other major banks line up to strike similar deals - - and they must - - the TARP's original claim that there were $700 billion in toxic assets out there will be revealed for the arbitrary and naive number it was.

Nor is Citigroup yet out of the woods. These capital infusions and guarantees are only meant to create some kind of floor under it's mortgage-backed securities exposure and provide the liquidity to make Citigroup a less risky borrower on the world's capital markets. Citigroup's other questionable loan portfolios - - particularly its credit card, commercial real estate, and other securitized debt - - will continue to sour as economic activity slackens.

The federal government is struggling on a daily basis to restore lender confidence and liquidity within the international capital markets. It has tried guaranteeing commercial paper, money market fund deposits, expanded FDIC deposits, interbank loans, and now finds it must place a floor under the mortgage-backed securities exposure of major banks. The evidence suggests the core purpose of federal government intervention is to do whatever is necessary to avoid another Lehman-sized bank failure. That's a reasonable goal, but we need to recognize it for what it is -- an ad hoc reaction to impending disasters as they arise.

However reasonable a goal in the near-term, the decision to forestall free market restructuring of these financial institutions has serious potential long-term implications. In other words, twice in the past six weeks Citigroup has reached insolvency - - its liabilities exceed its assets. The entire financial sector recognizes this and, understandably, won't lend to an insolvent bank or buy its short-term debt. Twice in the past six weeks the federal givernment has stepped in to pad the asset column with capital infusions exceeding $50 billion.

This time, the federal government has also guaranteed 90% of potential losses on over $300 billion of these assets at Citigroup, but they remain on Citigroup's books. It will take decades for many of these assets to be retired and Citigroup will have to retain reserves against these possible losses during that period -- money that might otherwise provide liquidity to the economy through business and personal loans. Repeat that same story among the other major banks and you can see how much dead weight in potentially bad loans will hang over the financial sector for years to come. There are no private buyers for these assets at this time at any price. Even the federal government backed off buying these assets from the banks after TARP was passed -- choosing less costly guarantees instead.

Normally - - and for smaller banks and businesses facing insolvency - - the liability side of the ledger is reduced through restructuring (selling off assets to pay down liabilities and focusing on a core business to generate sufficient cash to pay down the rest over time) or bankruptcy. The federal government has taken bankruptcy off the table for the likes of Citigroup. Without the fear of bankruptcy, the impetus to restructure is less urgent. In fact, the political will to tackle the extreme dislocations which may occur when the behemoths of the financial world all face insolvency simultaneously, and so must restructure simultaneously, can disappear. Faced with a choice between certain pain now and perhaps less pain extended into the distant future, most politicians will choose the latter. This is what happened in Japan, resulting in their infamous "lost decade," humbling an economic powerhouse thought to be more saavy and politically disciplined than the United States during its meteoric rise in the 1980's.

This is the real danger of these successive bailouts. We are watching the transfer of decision-making authority from the collective rough and tumble of the free markets to the White House. We know free markets can be brutal things and Citigroup filing for bankruptcy would likely shake financial markets to their core. We also know no White House will be able to resist the political pressure of major contributors for long - - allowing businesses which should have failed in a free market to drag on.

In sum, a pattern is emerging which strongly suggests the federal government will continue to prop up the biggest firms, encourage restructuring through mergers where solvent buyers can be found, and pour money into the capital markets in the hope greater liquidity and inflation eventually create a market for the toxic assets weighing down the big firms' balance sheets. The pattern strongly suggests we are reducing pain in the near-term, but extending it over time. Where "economists" a year ago questioned whether we would even see a recession, they now speak confidently about a recession lasting several quarters to a year. A year from now, they will be talking about an extended period of low- to no-growth stretching into the next decade. Five years from now, they'll be criticizing the powers that be today for showing too little resolve, propping up firms they should have allowed to fail.

More Stormy Weather

2008-10-27T13:01:00.006-04:00

Do I think we're headed into another Great Depression? No, that is impossible because the Great Depression was a time and place which is now past and can never return. Like every crisis we face, we measure our current prospects by the past. Iraq was not going to be another Vietnam for a thousand reasons. Amazingly, Iraq has turned out to be Vietnam for a thousand reasons no one could have guessed at the outset. This growing global economic crisis will not be a repeat of the Great Depression for a thousand different reasons. However, it looks to be a searing experience for many which will alter the rules to a degree and extent we simply cannot imagine right now.

I remember a conversation I had as a very young man with my grandfather, an old school capitalist who survived the Great Depression and considered "FDR" a curse. When asked about the 1929 crash, he said the Crash was not a huge event in itself. He said the news came slowly and the market rebounded so quickly that it seemed like a blip at the time. He said there was no single memorable precipitating event, rather it was the relentless stream of discouraging news and results -- month after month, quarter after quarter, year after year, that characterized the Depression. He said it just ground down optimism over a long period of time, squeezing confidence out of the markets and the entire system.

I recall this as I look at the markets and wonder what the next 2-3 quarters of earnings will present, how world recession plays out and a world of opaque balance sheets deleverage from among the banking and non-bank sectors. The Fed/Treasury have succeeded in putting a stop to runs on banks and the first panic, but there's plenty to suggest we're in for a remarkable, extended stream of bad news which won't be as susceptible to federal credit extensions.

It seems to me the Lehman shock, as those repercussions spread through the global financial markets, pushed the federal government into a situation akin to what the Japanese government has struggled with since their collapse in the late 1980's. If there are entities which are too big to fail, they can become the "credit zombies" -- effectively insolvent but too costly to unwind -- that still haunt Japan. At the time, it seemed obvious that the Japanese government didn't have the political will to let these giants fail. Robust capitalists in the West smugly discounted the Japanese lack of courage. Events of the past few months make pretty clear that -- when contemplating the consequences face-to-face -- we are similarly lacking.

I find it hard to believe we're facing anything less than a multi-year squeeze. All the talk of attractive share prices based on historical P/E's is just a snapshot out the window of a fast moving car. The earnings denominator is beginning a rapid, sustained decline and, until there's greater stability in overall economic activity, the price numerator is a lagging indicator I view as pure gambling to chase.

Where does it end? Conventional wisdom says the Second World War ended the Great Depression. It might as easily be said the Great Depression ripened the world for that awful war. I'm not saying we face a global depression or that a global war will follow. I'm simply saying we delude ourselves to somehow imagine we know better now. We delude ourselves to think the federal government -- and national governments throughout the world -- didn't do their utmost, with the best intentions and grasp of circumstances they had, to combat the economic collapse of the 1930's. We delude ourselves when we assume we're somehow smarter, more evolved, or wiser than that earlier generation. The proof is everywhere around us. Together, we all drank the kool-aid and accepted unprecedented good times as normal. Together, just as every generation before us, we'll find the challenges we face these next few years are, to some extent, beyond our comprehension because they, too, are unprecedented.

Stormy Weather

2008-10-26T08:33:00.008-04:00

Quite a storm last night. There's a metaphor here, but I may not find it before the end of this post.

I've heard from a number of neighbors since my last post, mostly kind and encouraging words about the blog itself, but also a number of one-on-one questions seeking advice about the economy. When I point out that I'm not a professional investment advisor, the response tends to be "that's why I'm asking." I've noticed an overall shift in the business media as well -- moving past the vilification of Wall Street and towards a more wary sense of skepticism towards all the punditry - - CEO's and Treasury officials included. I think that's progress, but am still troubled by h0w little thoughtful news coverage and debate addresses the fundamental engine to the current swoon.

I know that I don't know how bad things may get or how those bad things will present themselves. I'm pretty sure no one else knows either. I do think there are a few hints to suggest we're in for tougher times internationally, nationally, and locally, than we can hope to identify at this juncture.

We are experiencing the natural rejoinder to an extraordinary, once in a lifetime, economic boom. The sustained strength of economic activity and the unprecedented wealth creation throughout an increasingly globalized economy -- despite serious shocks in the late 1990's and 2001 -- slowly edged us all further and further along the risk aversion continuum to levels of borrowing and speculation which would have seemed utterly reckless just a few years ago. The boom changed the rules simply because it continued for so long.

I think it's important to recognize the communal delusion beneath it all because that delusion hasn't lifted, it's simply shifted. There were plenty of people saying things were out of whack as early as the late 1990's. I know because I was convinced the stock market had become idiotic back in 1998 and I read every Cassandra I could find to reaffirm my fear. But between 1998 and the stock swoon in the months prior to 9/11, I lost faith in my own doubts as day after day, quarter after quarter, the markets boomed. The relentless good news made caution seem foolish and, while I felt temporarily vindicated by the internet bubble bursting, the markets recovered in a matter of months and roared forward for another seven years.

I think it's very likely we face the same dynamic with the bust.

The Treasury Department can only go to the well so many times to dollop liquidity on the credit markets. The stream of CEO's and pundits speaking reassuringly about the long-term prospects for the economy will dwindle. As with the relentless nature of the boom, the sustained negative trends will progressively sap the residual optimism among business people and households. What replaces that optimism should concern us all.

We have just passed through the first panic of this downturn. The Treasury Department and Federal Reserve -- aided by Congress -- acted admirably and forcefully to head off a complete collapse of international banking. Their interventions to prop up individual institutions, and increasingly all the major national banks, have not saved these institutions, they've simply headed off panicked runs as they've arisen.

The ad hoc, reactive nature of the federal government's efforts are best seen in the amazing morphing "bail-out" package approved by Congress. First presented as an effort to take a bullet for the banks by assuming their "toxic liabilities," the bailout soon became a direct infusion of capital into the largest federal banks, and most recently, a combined carrot and stick the federal government is using to compel consolidation, feeding weaker banks to their stronger brethren.

The federal government is doing everything it can to prevent a complete collapse of the financial markets. The feds have gone far beyond what anyone imagined it could manage, legally or politically, just twelve months ago. Consistent with the boom, this bust is also changing the rules, with each successive stagger downwards justifying greater desperation and fundamentally altering our assumptions of what is possible.

The bottom line should be clear: The Fed is buying time, keeping credit markets on life support until the critical stage of the disease passes. I'm sorry to say I find it difficult to believe they can succeed. Oh, the patient will survive, but the cost will be astounding. The price we may all pay can only be counted nominally in dollars. The real price, as in the Great Depression, will likely be the toll on our sense of well-being wrought by a relentless constriction of possibilities and opportunities over these next few years.

Pretty dire stuff.

Right now, the federal government -- and national governments throughout the world -- are working daily to keep capital markets from closing up. Those capital markets only bring the economic horse to water, they can't make it drink.

The fate of our economy will be decided by the aggregate of millions of individual circumstances. A very large number of households and businesses borrowed more than their underlying assets and/or economic prospects warranted. Some indeterminate number of households and businesses are just this side of bankruptcy or foreclosure, counting on a positive turn in the economy to stave off personal disaster. But the vicious cycle is picking up steam. Every layoff announcement pushes a few more households over the brink, reduces overall consumer spending and business income, pushing more businesses to the edge. With every bankruptcy/foreclosure, lenders are forced to recognize the true scale of their losses on that loan. As optimism wanes, the potential cost balloons, the true extent of those losses can only be verified by actual bankruptcies and foreclosures. No one knows the ultimate cost because the cycle self-perpetuates for some period. The credit risk of borrowers changes as the individual circumstances of those borrowers changes. No one knows where the cycle will end.

In other words, the focus of federal efforts and most analysis of our prospects remains on credit availability. We are facing a credit crisis and, to my limited grasp, it appears to me they're doing their best. But the credit crisis is a symptom and consequence of the underlying equity crisis -- too much debt in too may hands with worsening prospects for repayment. That equity crisis can only be resolved by reducing the amount of outstanding debt to a level where it's sensible to lend and borrow once more. Traditionally, that occurs through foreclosures (net loss to home owner and lender); bankruptcies (net loss to lender and borrower); and refinancing (net loss to lender). The potential scale of losses makes the lender's job very tough.

If we were only worried about a credit crisis, it seems plausible governmental intervention could tide us over until lenders regained confidence. Facing an equity crisis we face a conundrum. Every step towards resolving that crisis - - clearing bad debt - - perversely puts more debt in question -- exacerbating the credit squeeze. We face a similar conundrum as a society and economy: The crisis deepens as optimism wanes. Optimism wanes as the crisis deepens.

I do not understand how this equity crisis can be resolved in months or even over the next year or two. The longer it lasts, the worse it will get; the more optimism ebbs away. Oddly, our collective delusion -- our tendency to maintain optimism despite the evidence, works in our favor here. However, at some point the litany of bad news can exhaust that optimism and the delusion swings too far to the other side. At that point, a vicious cycle undermines economic and political stability and gives way to demagoguery and literal bloodletting.

Perhaps our more highly developed and efficient capital markets will allow us to clear bad debt more quickly than during the boom/bust cycles of some prior generations. Or perhaps our more highly developed and efficient capital markets allowed us to gorge on debt to an extent only a ferocious emetic can clear.

It's sunny outside.

Where there's smoke . . .

2008-09-27T06:52:00.008-04:00

This past week of spectacular autumn days somehow reminds me of September 11, 2001 and the jarring juxtaposition of that gorgeous Vermont autumn day against the terrible events occurring over the horizon and on our televisions.

A similar feeling of suspended animation has set in these past few months as we all watch the outlines of a growing international credit crisis. The feeling has intensified this past week with the sudden drama of the Bush Administration's proposed $700 billion credit market intervention.

The disjunction between beautiful benign Vermont weather and the threatening chaos of the larger world is unsettling in itself. As with 9/11, the dizzying flurry of public drama this past week flooding the media channels easily overwhelms our judgment. However, the disjunction offers some perspective as well. For myself, I require the low hum of a pre-dawn Vermont morning to arrange my thoughts and take stock.

What I see in the burgeoning credit crisis is both much worse and much less mysterious than the news frenzy would suggest.

First, the economic fundamentals involved are, I'm afraid, more dire than most the popular media seem able to grasp.

The bank failures and related government interventions are symptoms of a deeper, more profound credit crisis. The news cycle celebrates the symptoms without really addressing the underlying disease. Each intervention by the federal government is treated as a positive sign and the stock markets -- barometers of speculative investment rather than fundamental economic health -- leap as though the disease has been vanquished.

We are, instead, facing a crisis in confidence which, if allowed to become a panic, may well prove as traumatic and disruptive as the Great Depression.

Our economy and the world economy operate on relatively efficient credit flows. Individually, our decisions to spend are influenced by the availability of capital. Credit (mortgages, credit cards, car loans, etc.) expands the availability of capital beyond what our current assets would otherwise generate. Businesses and the business of banking are no different, though their ability to tap credit markets -- to leverage their assets -- is more sophisticated.

Extending credit is a matter of confidence: "Will the borrower be able to repay the loan?" There are certain well-established metrics to determine the lender's risk; credit history, job security, collateral. As debt instruments have become more complex and credit derivatives of all kinds have flourished, the question for lenders has increasingly become, "Can I sell the loan?," attenuating the risk of repayment by spreading the loan obligation among a number of different debt-derived securities which investors will buy.

The refinement of this secondary market for debt derivatives has fed an extraordinary period of credit expansion which has, in turn, fueled huge asset bubbles in the stock and housing markets. As long as prices continued upwards, confidence in further lending continued and the appetite to invest in debt-derived securities grew. To feed demand, lenders worked harder to drum up loans they could sell, loosening underwriting standards and terms based on what they could bundle and sell as debt-derived securities, rather than what the borrower could bear.

The fundamentals underlying the credit markets began to turn decisively in late-2005. Housing production began to fall well before lenders began to rein-in mortgage lending. Consumer spending has only recently begun to tail off despite unprecedented levels of consumer debt wholly disproportionate to prospects for offsetting increased wealth. A succession of subsidiary credit markets have shriveled, beginning with "sub-prime" mortgage-backed securities; the complete collapse of a $330 billion auction rate securities market last winter; and more recently, the bedrocks of the secondary mortgage market Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and (via credit default swaps) AIG. Banks are hoarding what cash they can find to offset their growing lending losses rather than offer new loans. As these credit markets have constricted, they have rendered higher quality debt-derived securities more risky, giving impetus to a vicious cycle of credit contraction. Finally, with the public drama of Secretary Paulson's proposed intervention to purchase up to $700 billion in debt-derived securities, public confidence in the overall economy appears to have taken a turn.

It is that shift in public confidence which will determine whether we face a sharp recession or a prolonged economic depression.

Unfortunately, for all of us, neither our political nor our business leadership can afford to speak frankly on the matter until it's too late. To openly address the severity of the credit crisis would be to openly state that, inevitably, the vast majority of people will be less well-off over these next few years than they have been these past few. As people ask how much less, some will panic and panic is contagious. FDR's famous 1933 Inaugural Address quotation, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," is as true today as it was in the depths of the Great Depression. By the time FDR uttered these words, vast wealth had already disappeared in bank runs, stock market declines, and foreclosures; the political risk of admitting the emperor had no clothes had past.

Today, our business and political leadership are scrambling to put band-aids on the credit markets and keep up a brave face. The federal intervention in the collapse and liquidation of Bear Stearns last March was considered an unprecedented intrusion into the markets by the Federal Reserve. Since then, the federal government has initiated an escalating series of unprecedented interventions, each more expensive and far-reaching than the last; each premised on the hope that it would be the last. In this context, Secretary Paulson's proposed $700 billion intervention in the mortgage debt derivative market should be recognized as simply another hopeful stopgap.

If you take a look at Secretary Paulson's original plan:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html?ref=business

you'll notice he's seeking authority to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgaged-backed securities at any given time over the next two years. The hope appears to be that adding $700 billion to the mortgage debt market will allow banks and investors to sell off their distressed mortgage debt and use the cash from those sales to lend and reinvest. The concept is sound, but there's simply no guarantee $700 billion will be enough to encourage gun-shy lenders to open the credit taps once more; or to save the more distressed entities from worried investors. Moreover, the time period envisioned -- initially two years of continuing authority -- highlights the Treasury Department's expectation it will take an extended period of federal intervention to restore lender confidence.

Can any intervention at this point alter the fundamental shift in public confidence? While the stock markets may well leap at a signed intervention plan, the bread-and-butter of our economy will continue to languish with limited lending available while lenders sort out their balance sheets and borrowers bear the weight of existing debt in a recessionary economy. While Secretary Paulson and his successor are busy sorting out the mortgage-backed securities market, the credit-card-backed securities market, basic business loans, and mortgage payments on non-defaulting mortgages will all continue to deteriorate for all the same reasons the mortgage markets collapsed: a great deal of lending and borrowing occurred based on the appetite of investors to buy the debt, rather than traditional metrics for assessing the credit worthiness of the borrower.

Over-leveraged borrowers must reduce spending to cover debt expense. Consequently, business activity declines and lay-offs increase. Over-leveraged borrowers who lose their jobs will default on mortgage and credit card loans and the vicious cycle continues. Depositors begin to question the adequacy of bank reserves to cover swelling bad debt and begin to pull their money as we've seen recently with certain money market funds. If enough people run for the exits, panic ensues and all bets are off.

How do the federal interventions stay ahead of what is, ultimately, an untenable debt load throughout our economy? They don't. A lot of this debt must wash through the economy, depleting savings and sinking businesses in the process. The Paulson plan simply hopes to keep the major inter-bank lenders afloat while the economy "deleverages." If they can stave off a run on the banks, they can keep the credit taps open for those able to borrow. Eventually, confidence builds among consumers and they begin to borrow and spend once more.

The only thing I know for sure is that literally no one knows how this will all play out precisely because no one can know whether/when panic might set in. It is that fear, the fear that fuels economic panic, that we must now fear.

It's leadership we lack. The frank, courageous leadership to address the current crisis for what it is, confront the risk of panic up front, and outline a progressive multi-year plan to deleverage the economy which will mean pain for many but should avoid the irrational economic destruction of a panic for all.

Sadly, it may be the nature of the beast which makes such leadership rare. Those who claw to the top of the business and political worlds do so against ridiculous odds, fueled by an irrational optimism in both their own prospects and, I'm afraid, their own abilities. The few who reach the pinnacle are habituated to overcoming obstacles through that same optimism and sheer determination. You don't get to the top telling those below you to accept less.

(FDR's 1933 inaugural address, which employs much of the language and focus we sorely need today, was likely only possible after the horses were already out of the barn and the economic collapse an accepted fact: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/ )

Who Needs A Town Manager?

2008-06-22T12:52:00.005-04:00

Here we are again.

On Tuesday, the 24th, we'll be asked once more to vote on employing a town manager.

I've had a chance to speak to any number of residents about the vote, both proponents and opponents. Foreshadowed back in the 2001 Town Administrative Needs Committee report which first recommended a town manager, I've concluded that the outcome on Tuesday doesn't really matter.

That 2001 report includes a "Note of Caution" beginning at the bottom of page 13, which reads as follows:

The towns we surveyed that ran best—and in which satisfaction with the structure seemed to be highest—all had the same characteristic: Selectboard members were content to leave day-to-day administrative decision-making to the administrator or manager. This is not an easy state of affairs to maintain, and it may be especially difficult in Norwich, given the board’s tradition of hands-on authority. A town managed by a chief administrative officer who lacks Selectboard support, is constantly second-guessed by individual Selectboard members, or whose authority is
undermined by Selectboard interference may well be worse off than one with no professional administrator at all.

As we talked with other towns about how they do things, we were struck by the fact that some are quite happy with their structure, while others have switched from one form to another—and, in a few cases, back again—as they search for the perfect governing blueprint. This suggests to us that there is no perfect blueprint; any structure might work, given the right alignment of personalities, politics and needs.

We are quite aware, then, that what has worked in other towns will not necessarily work for Norwich. One thing we can say for certain, though, is that no change will work unless it clarifies lines of authority within town government. Even then, it will take more than a statutorily defined job description to do so. Switching to a town manager will require the Selectboard to change its style of operation dramatically, and the townspeople of Norwich to respect the new structure.

As a committee, we have become convinced that town government can improve under a better administrative structure. But we are equally convinced that end-runs around the manager by townspeople and political power plays by elected officials can sabotage even the best-designed structure. Whatever option we adopt, we hope the people of Norwich will give those charged with making it work all the support and encouragement they need to be successful.

We now have seven years of experience with the town manager model. The results are decidely mixed for all the reasons outlined back in 2001. If we want to understand what hasn't worked this past decade -- and what will likely bedevil us in the decade to come however many town managers and/or town administrators we employ -- we need simply look in the mirror.

Since the openly divisive selectboard elections of 2000, we seen almost constant turnover in selectboard membership with most incumbents defeated seeking reelection or choosing not to stand for another term. Each new selectboard majority has viewed itself as an agent of change intent upon reversing the errors of their predecessors and protecting the town from future errors by the recent majority they've unseated. The aggrieved majority in 2000 was unseated by a different aggrieved majority two years later and yet another over the next three years.

The one constant throughout has been faction. Anyone active in town government this past decade has found themselves challenged to declare themselves an "us" or a "them" at any given time, in any given drama, and there have been plenty: Police protection, the Bradley Hill Trail, the original town manager debate, creating a development review board, the Planning Commission purges, outsourcing police protection, building affordable housing, Norcap, the "Gateway," the bandstand, and now another town manager debate.

Faction -- the tendency to delineate an "us" and a "them;" villify the "them" and take comfort in the angry fellowship of "us" -- and our appetite for faction in Norwich, is rendering this community effectively ungovernable. In my opinion, it's rendered the decision whether to employ a town manager or a town administrator largely irrelevant. Either and both are doomed to be frustrated by factional discord unless and until the political culture of this town changes.

It is said that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. Similarly, the opposite of faction may not be unanimity, but rather tolerance. There is no reason to think we should all agree on the issues of the day. There are any number of practical reasons we should do our best to disagree in a constructive manner; understand the thinking of those with whom we disagree and tolerate their right to voice disagreement.

The single best reason for tolerance is the simple fact we live together. Those who think Tuesday's vote will decide anything more than the next incremental episode in our shared struggle to govern ourselves are sadly deluded. Tuesday's victors and vanquished will all still remain town residents; still be subject to the same taxes, land use regulations, school services, police and fire protection; still vote next March. Those who subject themselves to these votes would do well to spend more time reaching out to those who may disagree, understand their points of disagreement, and resist the short-sighted advantage won by finger-pointing and fueling outrage to garner votes. Democracy is not preordained to succeed. It only ensures that we all have a voice in its success or failure. Whether we choose to work together or instead attempt to divide and conquer each election cycle and special town meeting is really a matter of individual wisdom, humility, and tolerance. As a town, we seem a little short on these virtues lately. No town manager or town administrator on earth can deliver them for us.

* * *

Monday Note: The links I placed on the Norwich listserv were truncated. The complete links are here:

1) A detailed review of the town manager versus town administrator question;

http://norwichnavel.blogspot.com/2007/03/i-confess-bewilderment-with-debate.html

and 2) The questions that question begs:

http://norwichnavel.blogspot.com/2007/03/part-two-town-managers-police-whats.html

Town Eating Day - Valley News (2/17/08)

2008-02-25T11:19:00.000-05:00

As political controversy season nears here in Norwich, I'd like to issue a friendly challenge to the Valley News and your readers.

When the feathers start flying; as our worst-behaved neighbors and town officials begin to dominate the headlines, we'll have a choice. On the one hand, we can entertain the outrage-peddlers as they angle for headlines. We can continue to stoke the factional flames by lending them an audience, hoping they'll somehow learn to listen with humility and wisdom once they've chased their adversaries from the stage. Or we can refuse to play, demanding more of ourselves and our community to move beyond the scorched-earth tactics of recent years.

Last winter, a group of Norwich residents -- fed up with the state of politics in town -- began building an alternative approach. We held a day of events meant to complement Town Meeting -- tentatively called ""Get Off Our Duffs Day." We invited townspeople (and journalists) to a day meant as a celebration of the human scale of town government and small-town community.

The morning was spent in a series of break-out sessions focusing on individual volunteer town committees, boards, and commissions. The sessions are designed to break down the distance between these boards and the public by dedicating time for open dialogue without the agendas, deadlines and formality which so often stifle a free exchange of ideas. They also seek to promote transparency, giving townspeople an opportunity to learn about the duties and time commitment involved in serving on these volunteer boards, while providing board members a chance to solicit public opinion on issues which fall within their authority.

Following the morning sessions, a free hot lunch was provided in the school gym, allowing townspeople time to get to know neighbors they've seen around town but never met or follow up with town volunteers on conversations from the morning. After lunch, we held two general sessions, first with our school board, followed by a plenary session on our fire and police protection -- all lightning rods here in Norwich. These sessions explicitly addressed how our community should make decisions regarding these difficult issues, eschewing the headline-dominating debate focused entirely on "who" might be to blame and "why." While these sessions lacked volume and vitriol, they proved this community can address difficult issues in a deliberate and sensible manner.

Sadly, the event received no press coverage whatsoever. We understand the Valley News is in the business of selling papers. Faction and scandal sell papers and are even arguably newsworthy. But it's time for the Valley News to dig a bit deeper, using its pages to help our communities find constructive solutions to the real problems we face.

Your readers live in a region with a rich and storied tradition of self-reliance, where democracy still means not simply the right to vote, but also the corresponding duty to serve. Our communities are of a scale -- a human scale -- where bureaucracy remains the exception and citizenship means more than merely consuming government services. Our volunteer-based model of civil service -- and the subtle virtues that service fosters -- will only survive if we work to preserve it. That struggle, found to some degree in every town where the Valley News is delivered, is itself surely newsworthy.

So we're going to do it again this year. Renamed "Town Eating Day," we'll gather Saturday, March 1st, in Marion Cross Gym. We'll follow a similar format with some refinements we hope will help establish this day as an annual tradition here in Norwich. As "Town Eating" takes root, we hope it becomes a perennial antidote to the politics of outrage which have done so much to diminish Norwich town government this past decade. The day is open to all Norwich residents (and Valley News reporters). We hope to see you there.

little big brother

2008-02-03T11:26:00.000-05:00

Here's an interesting read:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/finance/search/?zipcode=05055

Find out who your neighbors support for president.

Big Picture Planning and Permitting

2008-01-08T14:19:00.000-05:00

I've been given twenty minutes to address the joint SB/PC meeting this evening so spent my time waiting for my car to be fixed this morning jotting down notes.

Twenty minutes is not enough time to discuss specific provisions of the proposed zoning regulations in any detail. Instead, I hope to take a step back and discuss the draft zoning regulations as a symptom of a much more serious problem with Norwich town government as a whole -- our planning and permitting process in particular.

These draft zoning regulations are the fruit of a land use governance regime which is fundamentally broken. It represents the cost in dozens upon dozens of volunteer hours devoured by a demonstrably failed approach we nevertheless perpetuate for lack of the imagination, the criticial perspective, and the political will to remedy.

Our current methods have yielded a Town Plan now eleven years without any meaningful updates or review. They've seen us run through nearly two dozen Planning Commission members in the past six years. They've delivered draft zoning regulations -- several times larger than their predecessor regulations in terms of verbiage -- produced by nine (now seven?) volunteers and professional staff working largely on their own. These zoning regulations now face the distinct possibility of rejection by the Selectboard for a number of reasons discussed here and elsewhere.

Who's to blame? Who cares? Our real problem is asset utilization. For years now we've squandered untold hours of volunteer time struggling to run everything planned and permitted through a nine-member Planning Commission. We've allowed our Planning Commission -- in it's many iterations over the past decade -- to become woefully overextended in terms of time and agendas. There's simply no way for a single nine-member commission to do everything we ask of them, let alone do those tasks well. This would be of little moment if it didn't directly impact -- negatively impact -- land owners here in town. The price of poorly conceived regulations; the expense in terms of time, money spent navigating the permitting process, and good will diminished -- plain to see to anyone who sits in on a few DRB hearings -- is unconscionable. All the more so as a viable alternative is explicitly contemplated in recent changes to Vermont's land use laws.

I'd like to talk about that alternative, how it might work here, and how we might go about putting it in place. If we're willing to take a new approach to planning and permitting here in Norwich, I'd recommend rejecting these draft regulations and remanding them for thorough revision consistent with this new approach. If we aren't willing to tackle the deeper issues here, then rejecting and remanding these regulations to the Planning Commission seems to me a cruel, pointless gesture. We might as well accept that these regulations are the best we're going to produce and pity the applicants, their neighbors, and the DRB members who must find there way through them until we get around to revising them another 15 years from now.

The Marijuana Paradox and the Right to Sin

2008-01-06T10:07:00.000-05:00

Windsor County State's Attorney Bobby Sand's Forum letter in today's Valley News is worth a ponder. Sand frames the decriminalization debate in terms few have acknowledged and effectively exposes the political motivations behind the hyperbole. It might also be read as a gracious gesture towards Governor Douglas who has been on his back heels over marijuana since the day he tried to make populist hay of Sand's prosecutorial discretion in the Martha Davis matter.

Sand's thesis is straightforward: Our national drug policy is a tremendous drain on law enforcement resources with very little to show for the effort. With marijuana use widespread, a significant minority of voters against criminalization, and thousands of lives disrupted by arrest and prosecution for marijuana possession, we need to reconsider our drug policy -- and marijuana laws in particular -- in a rational and dispassionate manner. Political ambition, expressed in the sanctimonious manner Jim Douglas exhibited this past autumn, does not help.

I would go a step further.

I've seen people I care about destroyed by illicit drugs -- even marijuana, which I would otherwise consider a less addictive substance. I've seen people I care about destroyed by alcohol abuse. I've seen the lives of people I care about shortened and weakened by addiction to tobacco. Having witnessed the price of addiction firsthand, I cannot say decriminalizing illicit intoxicants -- or greater access to licit ones -- is a good idea. But that's not the issue.

There are plenty of things Americans are allowed to do that aren't good ideas -- some which utterly repulse me. I don't think flag and cross burning are a good idea, but I accept that those too close-minded to recognize the deep insult of their actions have the constitutional right to make fools of themselves. The pornography industry is huge in this country, deemed an exercise in free speech protected by our First Amendment. The idea of watching other people have sex doesn't do it for me, but I accept that millions of Americans will pay good money for the vicarious thrill. I don't think pornography is a good thing for the actors or the audience, but that's not the issue.

The issue is one of individual liberty and the extent to which our laws may limit individual liberty for the benefit of society as a whole. The issue is our right to sin.

Take tobacco for instance. Unlike alcohol -- an illicit drug in this nation for a decade -- tobacco has never faced a complete legal prohibition. While there are likely some beneficial characteristics to tobacco consumption, there's really no question smoking and chewing tobacco regularly has a serious, progressive, negative impact on the health of the user. By law, we've prohibited the sale and use of tobacco by minors on the principle that minors do not have the mature capacity to choose what's best for themselves. By law, we've recently prohibited smoking in indoor public spaces on the principle that workers employed in those spaces aren't truly free to avoid the secondhand smoke. Compared to the outright prohibition on alcohol in the 1920's and on marijuana today, these are relatively nuanced measures to balance public health concerns with individual liberty -- not unlike the balance we've struggled to maintain with regard to free speech.

Can we find a similarly nuanced approach to marijuana and other illicit intoxicants? Can we recognize the individual's right to be intoxicated balanced against society's right to be protected from secondhand injury due to that individual's indulgence? I cannot imagine why not. But that question -- the proper balance between an individual's right to sin and society's right to be protected from injury -- isn't even on the table for discussion.

Why do we recognize and protect the rights of the pornographer, the drinker, and the tobacco smoker, but deny adults the right to mistreat their bodies using other intoxicants? Certainly, the pornography, tobacco, and alcohol industries are now so well entrenched financially that they can mount an effective defense against legislation seeking outright prohibition. But that can't be the whole answer, as social mores regarding alcohol, tobacco and pornography have shifted substantially over the decades; alcohol and tobacco treated more stringently since the 1960's and pornography actually finding wider acceptance within the mainstream.

Ultimately, it may simply be a matter of majority rule. A lot of people like the intoxication of alcohol and nicotine. A lot of people like watching other people have sex. Not enough people like the intoxication of marijuana, methamphetamine, or opiates to tip the political scales against prohibition?

Unfortunately, the cost to this minority -- their families and neighbors -- is horrific. By driving the market for these intoxicants underground, we've abandoned millions of people to a criminal underworld which mocks the law-and-order sanctimony of our politicians. Selectively denied their right to sin -- their addictions arbitrarily criminalized -- we feed a cycle of property crime, prostitution, and exploitation which our prisons and police are finding increasingly difficult to contain. It is politically expedient to sweep the mess under the rug, but the cost in terms of individual lives and innocent bystanders is immense.

Political expediency and majority rule can and do perpetuate terrible injustice at times. Our founders understood this and sought to enshrine the supremacy of individual rights in our Constitution. This did not prevent the perpetuation of slavery, racial segregation, the disenfranchisement of women, or Prohibition, but it was instrumental in the eventual remedy of each over time.

As a society, we need to insist upon our right to sin. Since our founding, we have recognized an adult's right to sin by decriminalizing divorce, contraception, engaging in homosexual acts, and gambling -- to the chagrin of many. This right to sin is not a monolithic trump to reason. The right to sin with tobacco, alcohol, and XXX videos is not without counterbalancing restrictions for the protection of broader society. Drunk driving, secondhand smoke and child exploitation for sexual gratification are legitimate dangers to others and thus legitimate bases for regulation. Despite the distaste many may feel, it is time to confront the implications of recognizing an adult's right to sin with a broad range of illicit intoxicants, not least marijuana.

Our forty year experience with this "War on Drugs" raises legitimate and difficult questions regarding the war itself. As we've learned, sometimes we lose wars because we were mistaken about the enemy. We talk about this "war" in terms of foreign narco-terrorists and drug cartels, but we've actually been fighting a war against the desire of millions of Americans to intoxicate themselves. Who are we, as a nation, to deny individual citizens this right so long as they exercise it without harming others? Who are we, as a people, to consign fellow citizens to a criminal underworld entirely of our own legislation? The impulse to control society for our perception of the "greater good" has within it the seeds of tyranny. Our insistence upon the rights of individuals -- enshrined within our Constitution -- forces us to question our own provinciality regarding what we believe to be the greater good. We err badly pursuing wars founded, not upon our defense of individual liberties, but rather upon our own sense of righteousness. We're going to lose this war, even if we win.

(LONG) Open Letter to SB/PC re: Tuesday, January 8th @ 6:30pm

2008-01-05T09:18:00.000-05:00

To the Norwich Selectboard:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Norwich Zoning Regulations currently before you and to ask the Selectboard to reject these proposed regulations at this time for further comprehensive revisions.

I take no pleasure in criticizing the work of a number of well-intentioned and hard-working volunteers in developing these draft regulations, but feel there's really no alternative to outright rejection at this point. While this letter may seem late in the game for the Selectboard, it is consistent with detailed comments I have provided the Planning Commission at their meetings, at public forums conducted to receive comment on these drafts, and by direct correspondence dating back even to the late 1990's. I have attached a PDF copy of one such letter written in response to the Planning Commission's February 2007 draft which I feel remains relevant to the draft now before you. (PDF available by request)

Where to begin? Three basic points:

1) The size and scope of these proposed regulations far outstrip our ability to meaningfully review proposed developments and to meaningfully enforce these regulations throughout the development process.

A simple example: Deer Wintering Areas. (NZR Draft 3.13 (B)(3))

According to 3.13, the impact of proposed development on the enumerated features shall be determined by the Development Review Board and development shall conform to the criteria of those regulations.

Specifically, Section 3.13(3) states that, "Development shall be located and configured to minimize adverse impacts on critical wildlife habitat, including travel corridors, deer wintering areas and natural areas identified in the Norwich Town Plan, by the Vermont Department of Fish & Wildlife, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, or through site investigation."

The section further states that development may be excluded from such habitat and a buffer area of adequate size shall be established to protect such habitat.

In theory, this all sounds fine. In practice, it's largely meaningless.

Huge swathes of Norwich are identified by the Vermont Department of Fish & Wildlife as deer wintering habitat and travel corridors between such habitat. Those maps are of some vintage and make no effort to identify variable levels of criticality. At DRB hearings where this criterion has been reviewed, testimony tends towards whether a neighbor has seen deer in the vicinity, hunters visit the area, and if anyone saw dropping during the site visit. There are currently no resources utilized by the town to assess relative criticality of habitat and land owners are left to the whims of the hearing whether their chosen house site or subdivision line will be found to impose more than minimized adverse impacts. Recognizing the capricious nature of the regulation in practice, the DRB is rightfully hesitant to give it any teeth.

To effectively regulate adverse impact upon deer wintering areas and related critical habitat, the town needs more detailed and transparent identification of the areas affected. This would allow land owners to plan ahead regarding house location and subdivision design. It would allow the Zoning Administrator to more meaningfully assist the land owner in the application development process by being able to point to regulations which are objectively comprehensible and enforced. It would allow neighbors and concerned conservation entities to meaningfully engage in the DRB review. Finally, it would allow the DRB to apply the existing regulations with more confidence in the fairness of the review process and the defensibility of the decision itself upon judicial review.

We don't have those maps today. To my knowledge, we don't have any specific plan to develop those resources at this time. So my question remains: Why regulate something we can't regulate well? Why burden land owners, their neighbors, DRB volunteers, our Zoning Administrator, and the town's legal resources on broad stroke regulations of this type? Don't regulate what you can't regulate effectively. While I've used deer wintering areas as an example here, there are many others throughout these regulations. The scope and size of these proposed regulations reflect our authority to regulate development under state law rather than our ability to meaningfully regulate a subset of factors specifically important to our community.

2) These proposed regulations burden land owners with voluminous restrictions and advice which are, in most cases, unenforceable due to vagueness, poor conception, or inconsistent application.

Example: Scenic Resources and the Norwich Gateway.

No one, at any level of the litigation concerning the Simpson project, disputed whether the January 2000 Inventory of Scenic Resources specifically identified the subject property as a scenic resource. To my knowledge, no one (other than our Zoning Administrator) questioned whether the Inventory of Scenic Resources was a legitimate legal basis to regulate development on that parcel. Nevertheless, in practice, the Inventory and applicable provisions in the subdivision regulations were deemed too vague to enforce. Upon appeal, the determination of what constituted an adverse impact to a scenic resource came down to a subjective judgment whether the lot in question was sufficiently scenic to warrant restricting development and whether the regulations were sufficiently specific to support a permit denial. The court concluded they were not and the DRB would be well-advised to finesse future fragile feature determinations so they are not the primary basis for a permit denial. Despite this, the proposed zoning regulations adopt the same mandatory language which has already proven effectively unenforceable under our subdivisions regulations.

Again, don't regulate what you can't regulate effectively. Why extend the fragile features criteria to our zoning regulations when they are so problematic in our experience under our subdivision regulations? Why put land owners through a series of hoops which are likely unenforceable, at least against those applicants with the means to mount an appeal?

If the town wants to preserve scenic resources, don't saddle land owners and DRB volunteers with these criteria. Entrust the Inventory of Scenic Resources to our Conservation Commission to prioritize these resources in a series of public hearings. Use that priority list to pursue conservation easements on those resources of highest priority. Don't impose a broad-stroke list of regulatory criteria on individual land owners -- potentially impacting the value of what to many is their largest single investment -- without taking the time to meaningfully differentiate between what the community would like to see conserved and what the community is actually willing to step forward and conserve.

3) These proposed regulations reflect a promulgation process which poorly utilizes town resources, burning out volunteers, and repeating a pattern of planning projects which collapse at the finish line rather than sustain a thoughtful and effective planning regime.

Examples: Town Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Regulation revisions, Inventory of Scenic Resources, etc.

Vermont state law is blessed with an enlightened attitude towards land use regulation which values local democratic participation in developing regulations above any centralized planning bureaucracy. In practice, I feel we, as a town, have made very poor use of our authority.

Why is it up to the Planning Commission alone to draft, research, and review proposed regulations and planning initiatives? Certainly, state law entrusts our Planning Commission with the authority to do so, but that doesn't mean the Planning Commission has to do it alone. We need the political and administrative leadership to reorganize our planning efforts to delegate far more research and drafting to existing and ad hoc committees which can utilize and develop specific expertise on discreet projects. Final policy determinations and regulatory language would remain the responsibility of the Planning Commission, but the development of policy and regulations would benefit from broader input.

Recent revisions to Chapter 117 clearly envision a more collaborative, less confrontational structure for both planning and permitting through the use of advisory commissions. The Bradley Hill Road controversy of a few years back illustrates this point well. A land owner sought to develop a parcel and access that parcel by improving what was effectively a hiking trail for automobile use. Neighbors objected. The Planning Commission and Selectboard were dragged into the fray. The controversy became a matter of litigation and a political rallying cry for libertarian land-owner rights folks on one side and communitarian trail/hiking/recreational rights folks on the other. In an attempt to avoid further such controversies a town committee was created to review all Class 4 roads in town and recommend candidates for trail designation. The committee was responsive to both libertarian and communitarian views and, in their work together, a more balanced and collaborative outlook on the issue emerged as everyone came to recognize a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach did not reflect the values of the community.

We are a community entrusted with the legal authority to limit what individual land owners can do with our land. We should exercise that authority sparingly and in a manner which draws broadly from the community to come up with solutions which suit us as a community. These 135 pages reflect the bureaucratic default which occurs when a single committee of volunteers are overextended, harried politically, suffer 100% attrition over a matter of a couple years, and plow on so they can get to the next item on their inexorably growing agenda. No number of public hearings asking townspeople to absorb 135 pages of regulatory language can make this document reflective of the community.

I am confident the Planning Commission has done the best they can under trying circumstances. I am simply saying it's time to address the circumstances. Let's take a step back and recognize the practical effect these regulations will have on land owners, their neighbors, DRB members, and, ultimately, the community. Let's develop a planning structure which addresses individual policy and regulatory goals in a deliberate and effective manner rather than seek to reinvent the wheel through omnibus decennial rewrites of our Town Plan and regulations. No volunteer-based Planning Commission can do that alone. It's time to exercise the political will and leadership to admit we're off track and put our minds to developing a solution which serves the community and its land owners.

Off-Kilter -- Baseball and Steroids?

2007-12-19T12:31:00.000-05:00

(. . . and now for something completely different.)

This morning I actually wrote a letter to Sen. Patrick Lahey's office as follows:

The emerging doping scandal in baseball is an excellent opportunity for Senator Leahy -- in his capacity as Judiciary Chair -- to champion an issue with national notoriety and potential positives for himself, the Democratic Party, and Congress as an institution.

- The self-evident success of doping for those who indulged, in terms of their careers and statistics, is a direct threat to public health as young aspiring athletes cannot hope to match the performance of their heroes without doping themselves.

- The scandal has brought the national past time into ill repute - - deepening public skepticism towards a sport which holds tremendous romantic/emotional value to many.

- Doping, like any form of corruption, poisons optimism towards institutions and casts a pall of suspicion upon all future excellence in sport.

- National sports, being businesses, have no real incentive to clean up doping as the heightened individual performances sell tickets, create heroes, and generate revenue.

- The inability of professional sports to regulate themselves and the dearth of meaningful political leadership on this issue continue to erode public confidence in institutions.

The only way to effectively combat their use is a public repudiation of steroid use, the results of that use, and a clear commitment to effective testing for the future. It's clear there's no incentive within baseball to do this and I would think steroid use is as high in other sports as well. Firm, practical congressional leadership on this issue can demonstrate Democratic leadership and a positive role for government at very little cost to taxpayers.

The Senator should outline a series of Congressional hearings on doping in baseball in the context of a comprehensive amnesty akin to South Africa's "Truth and Reconciliation" hearings. Congress would grant immunity from federal prosecution to those who testify. Congress would further compel Major League Baseball to offer immunity from league discipline for those who testify. Anyone seeking to receive this amnesty would be required to provide a sealed written proffer within a designated three month window after which any further amnesty requests would be at the discretion of the congressional committee conducting the hearings. While those who proffer and testify would receive immunity, their testimony could be used in the prosecution of others who failed to seek amnesty and federal prosecutors would be encouraged to pursue such cases.

These hearings would achieve three important goals. First, they would place Senator Leahy, the Democrats, and Congress overall at the forefront of the issue; demonstrating clear, decisive, and practical leadership on an issue which is otherwise wholly negative for sport and American culture as a whole. Congress needs some clear, effective, practical successes to change the public mood towards the institution.

Second, the limited-term amnesty offer should flush out players, suppliers, developers, labs, and team officials in a single burst. The slow, sapping trickle of scandal would be stopped and all the dirty laundry would be aired in one set of hearings. The anxiety generated by the amnesty offer and the accountability wrought by the hearings would place bookends around the "steroid era" and allow everyone to walk away in the end feeling that it had been exposed and rooted out.

Third, the depth and breadth of the testimony elicited would allow the hearings to expand into all professional sports and give Congress an opportunity to maintain leadership in a positive way regarding future anti-doping efforts. The testimony should seriously weaken the leagues and players' unions to the point Congress can impose a strict anti-doping regime for the future.

How often does Congress, as an institution, get the chance to be the good guys -- guardian of the national past time and the leadership in a meaningful anti-corruption campaign?

There remains the question of how to handle the record books tainted by doping and how to institute effective anti-doping procedures for the future. The amnesty from discipline would not reach the record books. Instead, once the amnesty and hearings are concluded, each league would convene a records commission made up of fans, journalists, ex-players, and league officials to reach a policy on how to handle doped statistics.

As for future anti-doping, I'd recommend Senator Leahy use the public condemnation of the leagues to threaten a significant television revenue surcharge upon each league to fund an independent national anti-doping agency with adequate resources to independently test for existing and as yet undeveloped doping agents. This independent organization would also need sufficient R&D resources to keep up with the illicit industry. If leagues and their unions can agree to a comprehensive and aggressive testing regime of their own they would be exempt from the tv revenue surcharge.

This is a no-brainer to me. A one-off air-the-dirty-laundry process with a finite end would generate favorable leadership points for Sen. Leahy, the Democratic Party, and Congress as an institution. It would demonstrate positive, practical leadership to a country which seems quite cynical about the national political leadership. It would also become the model for any future anti-doping intervention by Congress - - a significant disincentive to doping for young and future athletes as well.

Testing the Medium

2007-11-09T02:38:00.000-05:00

I've been meaning to begin blogging for some time now. Each time I take up the task, I'm bogged down by software, hosting, and format choices. Fed up with my own paralysis, I've decided to plow ahead and add content retrospectively as I go.

Hopefully, with a place to publish, I'll begin writing more going forward as well. I really don't like the first-person self-referential tone of entries like this. Comments would help.

Norwich Selectboard Woes - Circa 1861

2007-08-05T13:14:00.000-04:00

Supreme Court of Vermont.

HARVEY BURTON
v.
THE INHABITANTS OF NORWICH.

February Term, 1861.

The facts reported by the auditor, so far as they are necessary to illustrate the decision, are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Trial by the court, at the December Term, 1860,--REDFIELD, Ch. J., presiding.

The court rendered judgment upon the report for the plaintiff, deducting all charges for services, which were rendered by the plaintiff in the employment of, or in consultation with, the town grand juror of Norwich, to which decision the defendants excepted.

Harvey Burton and Converse & French, for the plaintiff.

Washburn & Marsh, for the defendants.

PECK J.

This is an action on book, and comes to this court on exceptions to the decision of the county court, in allowing certain items of the plaintiff's account objected to by the defendant.
The report shows that the plaintiff, at the time the account accrued, was an attorney and counsellor at law, residing in the town of Norwich.

Among the items so objected to by the defendant, and allowed by the county court, are items No. 1, 4, and 15, for professional services as such attorney. No question is made, but that the plaintiff rendered the services, but it appears from the report, that at the time they were rendered, the plaintiff was one of the selectmen of the town, and it is claimed by the defendant that the plaintiff rendered the services in his capacity as selectman, and not as an attorney, and that he never was employed by the town as an attorney or counsel, in the suits or matters in which the services were rendered. If this is so, the judgment of the county court was wrong in allowing the amount charged, which is more than he would be entitled to if he rendered the services as selectman merely, and not in his professional character--for the report shows "that the selectmen of the town received but one dollar per day for their services, by vote of the town, for some four or five years, including the year in which the plaintiff was selectman, and that this vote and custom were known to the plaintiff." This binds the plaintiff to that vote of compensation for all services rendered for the town in his official capacity as selectman. These three items accrued under the following circumstances: A petition was pending in court, in which the town was a party, and in which a hearing was about to be had before commissioners, relative to laying out a highway, and "a notice was served upon the plaintiff, as selectman, of the time and place of hearing. He thereupon informed the other selectmen, and had a consultation with them about the matter. The plaintiff advised to the employment of counsel, and said that such was the state of his health that he did not want to take the responsibility of the business upon his hands. With the understanding of the other selectmen, he wrote to Washburn & Marsh to attend before the comissioners as attorneys for the town, and he received a letter from them containing suggestions in regard to the preparation of the case. In accordance with the suggestions, the preparation was made, and that is the service charged for in item fifteen of the account." This item, as appears by the account, is for """examining town records and reports, getting copies of taxes, and preparing the West Hartford road case for hearing before commissioners." The other two items are for attending before said commissioners as attorney or counsel three days, Mr. Marsh having also attended the hearing as counsel for the town. It is objected that the selectmen have no authority to employ counsel, and thereby charge the town, and it is insisted that the sole authority to employ counsel is invested in the town agent.
The statute provides that "the selectmen shall have the general supervision of the concerns of the town, and shall cause all duties required by law of towns and not committed to the care of any particular officer, to be duly performed and executed,"--and entrusts the subject of highways specially to the selectmen. Comp. Stat. p 118, sec. 43. It also provides among the officers to be elected annually, by towns, that they shall elect "an agent to prosecute and defend suits in which the town is interested," and while it prescribes the duties of other town officers, it leaves the duties of the town agent to be inferred from the name and designation of his office, in the provisions relating to his appointment above stated.

Considering the general duties imposed on the selectmen in connection with the special duties imposed on them in relation to highways, the court think that it is within the scope of their implied powers to protect the interests of the town by employing counsel in road cases, where, as in the present case, the town agent provides no counsel and makes no objection to the employment of counsel by the selectmen. It is true that in Follett v. Whitingham, in Windsor County, 1860, the supreme court decided that when a suit was pending, it was primarily the business of the town agent to employ counsel in such cases, but they also decided that a retainer of counsel by the selectmen with the knowledge and without any dissent on the part of the agent, he declining to act in the matter, was binding until the counsel was subsequently dismissed by the town agent, subsequently elected, who employed other counsel, and that the attorney could not recover for services rendered after such dismissal--but they did not decide what the effect would have have been if the employment had been without notice to the agent. We think his assent may be presumed if that is necessary, where, as in this case, he neglects to employ counsel and no dissent is shown. Which would have the paramount right, in case of disagreement, it is not necessary to decide.

But it is objected that there was no employment of the plaintiff by the selectmen, and that the plaintiff being one of the selectmen, an express employment by the other two, (it appears there were three,) must be shown. There must be an employment either express or implied. But if one selectman is an attorney, and performs necessary professional services for the town in a matter in which the other selectmen, or either of them, act without any dissent on their part, the assent of the others will be presumed, and it is equivalent to an express employment.
But in this case so far as these three items are concerned, inasmuch as other counsel were employed, it cannot be inferred that it was the mutual understanding and expectation of the plaintiff and the other selectmen, or either of them, that the plaintiff was acting as counsel in his professional capacity, but the contrary; these services must therefore be referred to the plaintiff's official capacity as selectman, and be subject to the rule of compensation applicable to such services. The assistance rendered by the plaintiff in that proceeding, was mainly such as might have been rendered by him had he not been a lawyer; it is true it appears he sat with Mr. Marsh, the counsel of the town, and asked some questions, but that is not enough to give a professional character to the services, in the face of the other facts reported.

Item number six was for attending on a trial before commissioners in another case, relating to laying a road, in which the town was a party, and differs from the items already considered in this, that he attended in connection with one of the other selectmen, and the town had no other counsel, and nothing was said to show in what capacity he should act, or to rebut the presumption of an understanding that he was to be paid for his services according to their character, that is, in his professional capacity--and for this item he should be allowed as he has charged.

Item 23, the auditor reports, was for services rendered at the request of the overseer of the poor, and on reference to the account, it is said to be for "advice relative to Mr. Field being a town pauper, and going to his house, at request of overseer of poor." To this item it is objected that the overseer has no authority to bind the town by the employment of counsel. It is certainly necessary and important for the interests of the town, that the overseer should, in many instances, in his department, have legal advice to guide him-- difficult questions often arise in relation to the settlement of paupers, and it often becomes necessary for the overseer to determine whether to procure an order of removal, and for that purpose to know in what town the pauper has his legal settlement, in order to know whether to make a removal, and if so, to what town. The overseer is often called on to judge whether to appeal from an order made against his town. The consequence of making a wrongful removal, or of removing one to a wrong town, or of taking an appeal under a mistaken idea of the law, at once involves the town in litigation, and in no part of the business of a town is reasonable legal advice more necessary than in relation to paupers.

But it is claimed that the town agent has the exclusive authority to engage counsel and take advice. But it seems most appropriate that it should be left to the officer who has the charge of this branch of the business of the town, and who, from his superior knowledge of the facts, would be better prepared to so lay the case before the counsel, as to obtain correct advice, and who is called on to act upon such advice. Before the law was passed creating the office of town agent, there can be no doubt that the overseer had such authority. The law creating the office of town agent, is of comparitively recent origin, and there is no good reason to suppose that by the creation of that office the legislature intended to take away this necessary and salutary power, and transfer it to the town agent. The town agent is designated in the statute as "an agent to prosecute and defend suits in which the town is interested," and his duties obviously pertain to pending litigation, perhaps to the commencement of suits resolved upon, rather than to preliminary advice, the object and effect of which often is to prevent litigation. This item being of this character must be allowed.

As the defendant has succeeded on his exceptions, in reversing the judgment, it becomes the duty of the court to render such judgment as the county court ought to have rendered, and to correct errors, if any, that may be found in the judgment below by the disallowance of items that the plaintiff claimed, although the plaintiff did not except.

The court below rejected items No. 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 24, which the auditor finds were rendered at the request of the grand juror. The same objection is made to these items, viz: the want of authority in the grand juror to employ counsel. In the administration of that portion of criminal justice entrusted to towns, and in which the fines and costs collected go to the town, and which is conducted at the expense of the town, the necessity in many cases for legal advice and assistance is obvious, both for the interests of the town and for the welfare of the public generally. It is reasonable that some officer of the town should have this authority, and we know of no officer more competent to judge when counsel is necessary for such purpose than the grand juror. It is quite clear that it never was intended that the town agent should take charge of criminal prosecutions. He is appointed to prosecute and defend suits in which the town is interested. This must have reference to civil suits. With regard to criminal proceedings, the town grand juror is a prosecuting officer, and complaints are to be filed in his name, and prosecuted under his oath of office, and he, and he alone, is to exercise his judgment as to what cases to prosecute, and in what cases to enter a nolle prosequi if justice to the accused or the interest of the public requires it. This power he had before the creation of the office of town agent, and there is no reason to suppose that this important duty was intended to be taken from him, and transferred to the town agent. If such had been the intention, it would have been so provided. Most of these items appear on their face to have accrued in cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, and as to the others, in the absence of anything to warrant a contrary inference, they may be presumed to be of the same character, and be taken to be such as the grand juror had a right to incur at the charge of the town. Had it appeared that they accrued in cases beyond the jurisdiction of a justice to hear and finally decide, and therefore not prosecuted at the expense of the town, they could not be allowed, as compensation in such cases is made by the state under an allowance by the court auditor.

The conclusion is, that the judgment of the county court is reversed, and items Nos. 1, 4, and 15, amounting to $103, allowed by the county court, be disallowed, and items Nos. 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 24, amounting to $13, disallowed by the county court, be allowed. And in place of items Nos. 1, 4, and 15, there is to be allowed to the plaintiff the sum of four dollars, for four days services as selectman, being at the rate established by vote of the town. As to the residue of the account, the judgment is in accordance with the judgment of the county court.

BARRETT, J., did not concur as to the grand juror's right to employ counsel and bind the town.

Land Use Police

2007-04-25T18:47:00.000-04:00

Tuesday's Valley News front section offers an interesting portrait in newsworthiness.

Page 1 reports on the continuing police saga in Norwich with Gerard Chapdelaine regrettably caught speaking out of school. Page 2 holds a much more important story for Norwich residents, entitled, "School Board To Discuss Wilder Units." For those who may have missed it, there is an application before the Hartford Zoning Board of Adjustment and School Board for the construction of an 192-unit subdivision behind the Dothan Brook School on Route 5 in Wilder just south of the Norwich/Hartford border. 500 yards north and this would be huge story as a two hundred unit subdivision in Norwich would constitute a quantum leap in housing stock for this town. Instead, the development will be permitted and constructed without any input from Norwich and, but for this post perhaps, largely beneath our collective radar.

What we will notice, once these units are occupied, is the hundreds of additional car trips daily on Route 5 headed to and from the Exit 13 interchange. That traffic will be a factor for every Norwich resident passing through that interchange for the rest of our lives here. I'm not saying the development itself is good or bad. I'm simply noting how odd it is that a police job action few of us will remember twelve months from now trumps a development which will materially alter the lives of all commuters in our town for years to come.

Nowhere in Tuesday's paper can you find mention of the biggest story for Norwich residents. Our Planning Commission, after years of work, has produced new draft zoning regulations and convened a second public hearing to receive public input scheduled for Thursday evening. These regulations will govern every significant change any Norwich land owners wish to undertake on their property for the foreseeable future. The cumulative effect of these regulations will determine the look and feel of our community, influence land values, and define the costs of development for land owners and their neighbors in concrete and permanent ways.

I don't recall seeing any reporters from with the Valley News or Spectator at the earlier public hearing and don't expect they'll be in attendance Thursday either. I don't expect many of you reading this to put aside the hours necessary to absorb the 142 page draft document or troop down to Tracy Hall Thursday evening to discuss them. I'm simply pointing out that big changes are afoot for Norwich residents -- bigger, I dare say, than our police force and with much longer term consequences. Apparently, these changes don't fit the news cycle and probably don't sell newspapers.

Unwelcome news indeed.

Comments on Draft Zoning - Open Letter to PC

2007-04-25T08:08:00.000-04:00

To the Planning Commission:

I think the Planning Commission has done an admirable job under almost absurdly difficult circumstances to pull together these draft zoning regulations. Nevertheless, I urge the Planning Commission to seriously reconsider these draft zoning regulations and the manner by which they are promulgated. As drafted, I am concerned these regulations impose substantial restrictions upon individual land owners in an effort to prevent impacts most commonly created by subdivisions and large-scale development. In my opinion, this approach unnecessarily burdens individual land owners and significantly increasing our permitting and enforcement responsibilities to the eventual aggravation of many with very little to show for it in the end.

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Review these regulations from the viewpoint of an individual land owner seeking a zoning permit to build an addition or renovate an accessory structure on their land. These types of permits - - these instances of individual land owners confronting our zoning regulations for the purpose of making improvements to their property -- outnumber new home permits nearly four-to-one in recent years. Recognizing the limited individual impact such improvements are likely to pose, it may be worth considering a drastically reduced set of minimum restrictions applicable to non-new construction which aim to protect only the most compelling community interests.

2. Review several case studies based upon recent zoning permits, working through the regulations as the applicant, Zoning Administrator and/or DRB would be required to do. At each step, it is worth asking whether the restriction or added expense is justified by the development impact it seeks to limit. I'm concerned a number of measures in these regulations require a level of documentation, review, and enforcement supervision entirely disproportionate to their regulatory goals.

3. While it may sound obvious, the use of "shall" and "should" in these regulations is the difference between enforceable regulation and unsolicited advice. Wherever the regulations say a regulatory measure "shall" or "must" apply, that is a mandatory rule upon which an application must be denied unless some mitigating waiver authority is provided. Wherever regulations say "should" or "may," the regulatory measure is likely unenforceable as a basis for denying a permit. That being the case, you should ask whether the measure so recommended belongs in these regulations at all. While it may seem fine for the Planning Commission to promulgate unsolicited advice via these regulations, it's a difficult role for the DRB to administrate.

4. Consider creating regulatory tiers: a least restrictive tier for renovations and additions; a more restrictive tier for new home construction and adaptive reuse of existing structures; and the most scrutiny and regulation for subdivisions creating new lots and conditional uses creating more intensive use of surrounding infrastructure. Ideally, applicants and the DRB should be able to clearly identify the appropriate tier for each proposed development and the regulatory burdens imposed by those tiers should be commensurate to the intensification of use.

5. Consistent with the tiering idea proposed above, I'd urge you all to consider restructuring these regulations to simplify the specific regulatory restrictions and facilitate their use by applicants and their neighbors. Joe Cassidy's comments at the last public hearing -- expressing a "where to begin" bewilderment at these regs -- are a clear signal that whatever the regulatory virtues of this draft, it is a daunting body of regulations for land owners and DRB members to navigate. In other words, apart from questions of policy, this draft needs significant reorganization to improve usability for those actually affected by them.

6. I'll simply reiterate my concern expressed at the earlier public hearing that these draft regulations appear to me a significant departure from the "incentives towards better development" approach which our subdivision regulations pioneered. The complexity and low usability of these regulations further heighten the likelihood that land owners will find permitting under this draft a series of unpleasant surprises. I thought the new subdivision regulations made impressive strides towards helping land owners anticipate the issues so permitting could become more predictable and thus a more constructive experience for all. These regulations, I'm afraid, are a significant step back from that goal.

Finally, I again urge you all to consider a radical review of the overall promulgation process. For the past few years, I've gathered the distinct impression that my comments and criticisms of prior drafts and the drafting process have been unwelcome. Perhaps I'm simply deluded regarding the value of my comments, but I tend to believe this is more a factor of your workload, reflected in Stuart Richards' comments at the public hearing urging you all to get on with the town plan. As I've said on a number of occasions to both the PC and the Selectboard, I believe our planning and permitting process is fundamentally broken and must be addressed comprehensively. I do not think this is simply a matter of personalities or factions, but rather rests on structural and conceptual issues which are found throughout the state. I believe the recent changes to Chapter 117 were a legislative effort to reconceptualize the process in response to these difficulties. I'm disheartened that so much honest and well-intentioned volunteer effort continues to be expended on a structure which produces so little in return. The Selectboard in all it's recent iterations has shown no stomach to even discuss this matter. Our Town Manager lacks the familiarity with planning and permitting to be expected to lead a review. It's really up to you all, as a commission, to provide the leadership that can help us all escape this ineffectual grind that exhausting everyone.

As always, I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss this further, cognizant of the fact your meeting agenda is effectively backlogged in perpetuity.

Unintended Consequences

2007-03-24T00:23:00.000-04:00

Re: recent posts concerning another town committee to review town manager-style government. I wonder what might have happened if the Selectboard had fixed the town manager petition and allowed it to go to the voters rather than turning it into an advisory article.

We can only speculate as to the outcome of a vote on the article had it been allowed, but I think it's fair to assume the debate over this article would have been much more vigorous. Any number of people might have spoken up who felt no need to debate an advisory article on the matter. More might have reviewed the original committee report to understand what prompted the creation of a town manager in the first place. Proponents of rescinding the town manager structure would have been forced to defend their position not merely as criticism of the existing town manager but as a better approach to town government in itself. Had the Selectboard allowed the voters to decide the matter, the entire political landscape of the weeks leading up to town meeting would have been altered. Whether a town manager makes sense might well have dwarfed whether our police are properly supervised. We'll never know.

I recall Warren Rudman's comment defending "the People's right to be wrong," as a basic principle of democratic leadership and I tend to agree. An advisory article to create a new committee to revisit the town manager question occurs only at the expense of the handful of volunteers who will labor on that committee. A majority decision to reverse the town manager structure would have thrown town government into turmoil, the decision made at the expense of the people who made the decision. Shouldn't we trust the voters to recognize the risk, or, at very least, give voters the opportunity to get the government we deserve? Or do we have that already?

Beating a Dead Horse with Relish - (Valley News Op-Ed)

2007-03-14T14:19:00.000-04:00

To the Editor:

Your March 13th headline story covering the Norwich "Gateway" development reveals a level of journalistic bias and misunderstanding which I find simply lazy.

First the bias. Your reporter summarizes the events of the past three years concerning this parcel as a "drawn-out political fight over the overgrown lot, which lies about 600 feet from the Interstate 91 on-ramp." What political fight?

Simpson Development Corp. purchased an option on this parcel, filed an application, proceeded through a number of public hearings before our Development Review Board marked by very limited public participation, then appealed when the permit was denied. After this drawn-out legal battle over the requisite permits, a group of townspeople began a fund raising campaign to purchase the parcel. That effort failed to raise enough to buy the parcel and construction will commence within weeks. A Valley News columnist derided the fund raising effort, particularly in light of a failed affordable housing project elsewhere in town, but I missed the fight. Simpson, the "Save the Entrance" folks, and the town entities involved in the permit proceedings all acted rationally, deliberately, and without rancor. The fund raising effort faded with the bemused shrugs of many townspeople, not vanquished in any "drawn-out political fight." Norwich certainly has it's share of political fights, but this was, if anything, an honorable exception.

Overgrown lot overshadowed by the interstate? Simpson plunked down a quarter of a million dollars to buy it at a time their permit application was still under appeal. Simpson intends to invest well over a million dollars building five townhouses -- targeted for sale at around $500,000 apiece -- their representative stating later in this same article, that "this is the kind of development that everybody’s pushing for -- to have housing close to the center of town." The "Save the Entrance" group sought to raise nearly $600,000 to purchase and preserve this parcel for town use. Simpson appears willing to risk well in excess of a million dollars to develop this same parcel for townhouses. If successful, their buyers will shell out in excess of $2.5 million to live there. Why scoff at the judgment of the individuals who contributed to the preservation effort when so much more will be paid by others for their own semi-private piece of the parcel?

Finally, your reporter fundamentally misunderstands the legal proceedings in this matter. Judge Durkin's decision granting the Simpson permit never stated "that the [Development Review Board] had exaggerated the land's scenic qualities" because Judge Durkin -- as he notes in his opinion -- never read the DRB's decision. His decision rejected and nullified the value -- exaggerated or otherwise -- the Norwich subdivision regulations and the town's Inventory of Scenic Resources placed upon that parcel.

The difference is substantial. It's one thing to overturn a board because that appointed body misinterpreted the town's regulations or misconstrued the relevant facts. It's quite another to determine that a town's regulations themselves -- the result of hundreds of hours of volunteer effort, duly adopted and expressing the town's legitimate authority to regulate development for the common benefit of all townspeople -- are wrong-minded. Judge Durkin's decision says the people of Norwich, acting through our conservation commission, planning commission, and selectboard; and participating through public hearings which reviewed and ratified these regulations, "exaggerated the land's scenic qualities" and could not regulate the proposed development of this parcel in this instance.

Here we find a political fight with real substance, but sadly, too few reporters interested in chasing the story with the respect and integrity it deserves. It's the constant vital struggle between the individual land owner's right to do with property as he or she sees fit versus the community's right to regulate property for the general welfare. Vermont remains one of the few jurisdictions on Earth where that struggle has been entrusted to the people; to legislate regulations and adjudicate individual development using citizen commissions and boards; to engage one another in a perpetual dialogue about fairness and the common interest, the legacy we've inherited as stewards of these communities and the sense of place we'll confer to those who follow us. When Vermont's laws tilt towards granting judges the authority to supersede the regulatory judgment of these communities; when citizen boards and commissions give way to professional planners and municipal attorneys, we're talking about something much larger, something far more dear, than an overgrown lot and high-end condominiums. Your smug epitaph for the "Gateway to the Village" of Norwich suits the paper, not the story.

Part Two -- Town Managers, Police, What's Missing?

2007-03-05T13:33:00.000-05:00

As I tried to make clear in an earlier post, this town adopted a town manager form of government five years ago to remedy the deficiencies of selectboard management at that time.

The 2001 Town Administrative Options Committee report, convinced of the need for a structural response to our management woes, nevertheless offered two qualifications to their recommendation that Norwich adopt a town manager form of government:

"Ultimately, however, Norwich residents will determine whether adoption of a town manager helps our town. We have two concerns. First, the adoption of a town manager form of government may help erode our tradition of self-governance. As certain governmental matters are shifted to professional managers—and away from a volunteer Selectboard of our peers—we run the risk of creating a “hired” government and ourselves becoming mere consumers of municipal services. We feel strongly that this town and its people have been served well by a tradition of active civic involvement in town matters, and hope natives and newcomers alike will preserve this tradition even as we make concessions to today’s demands for professional services.

Second, there is no administrative remedy for incivility or for seeking to use town government as a weapon in political disputes. It is up to us, as individuals and as a community, to show—and expect of our neighbors—greater civility and constructive participation in public affairs. Prior generations have shown us what Norwich can achieve through self-reliance, sacrifice, and restraint. As we recommend practical steps to address future needs through the adoption of a town manager, we also hope our neighbors will keep in place the traditions of civil discourse and active participation that have meant so much in creating the town and community we share."

The point of this post -- as the report itself forecast when it first recommended a town manager -- is that our current difficulties regarding police and overall town management boil down to two terms: "bureaucratization" and "judgment."

The TAOC report plainly states that certain aspects of town administration, things like generally accepted accounting practices for municipalities; employee compensation and performance reviews; and governance best practices, have simply grown too complex -- too time-consuming -- to be performed well by elected volunteers. As it turns out, professional management brings with it a level of formality, a by-the-book respect for rules and regulations, which doesn't always sit well with lay people. This bureaucratic outlook begins to alter the tone of town government, leading, as we've seen this political season, to conflict with some citizens who feel common sense has been sacrificed in reverence for the letter of the law.

Our town manager and police chief take a certain pride in the professionalism of our current police force. Both have defended fines and conduct which have drawn criticism as consistent with town ordinance and state law. Both point out that our police force will soon receive national accreditation for their policies and practices. Chief Robinson, in a recent letter to the Valley News, pointedly noted that the current police force do not spend duty time surfing the web. I have no doubt the police have been directed, and have conducted themselves, consistent with their understanding of their duty. From that perspective, they must find some of the criticism leveled against them puzzling and offensive. I expect the national accreditation process may well vindicate the policies and practices our police have employed in the various incidents which have fueled the current controversy.

Behold the bureaucratic mindset. Our town manager and police chief have -- laudably I think -- identified professionalism and the objective measure of professionalism as primary goals in the conduct of their duties. Within that frame of reference, I'll bet we have an exemplary police force and I would be astounded if the national accreditation process concluded otherwise. The real question is whether national accreditation and the policies it embodies reflect the policing needs of a town such as ours. The answer, I'm afraid, is both yes and no.

Yes, because I recall a terrible incident of domestic violence some years ago which shook this town and exposed our police force of that time to a level of cold objective scrutiny for which it was wholly unprepared. Past and future victims -- seared by the experience -- have every reason to demand better protection and the highest standards of professionalism where it's at all conceivable those standards might prevent another incident. There's no proportionality to that demand. Some things are so awful we expect and authorize extreme measures to combat them. Our criminal laws have been written almost entirely in response to terrible crimes and at the behest of those left in their wake, so too, our regulations often reflect past accidents. There are truck weight laws because there have been terrible accidents with over-weighted trucks losing control. There are established policing strategies to combat loitering and petty acts because there is objective evidence that a more prominent police presence deters worse crimes. In light of the potential for bad things to happen and the simple fact police are often held accountable when bad things do happen, it's easy to understand the bureaucratic affection for a "by-the-book" approach to enforcement.

And yet, the answer is also surely no. No, because small towns and community itself are premised on a shared sense of proportionality, a common sense of how much is enough and what goes too far. There is simply no way a set of national standards, or even state laws, can reflect small town life in Norwich, Vermont. Certain policing methods -- fully consistent with national standards -- will inevitably rub some Norwich residents the wrong way.

There's a fundamental, unavoidable, tension between our rights as citizens and the enforcement of our laws; a tension as American as our Constitution and our rocky evolution as a democratic society. It would seem easy enough to engage our town manager and police chief in a dialogue seeking to balance a bureaucratic emphasis on professionalism with a democratic feel for small town culture. Apparently not. Instead of dialogue, we have ballot initiatives seeking to revoke the town manager structure and reform policing methods by eliminating officers and paring their budget with little regard shown for how we got here or what the consequences might be. Instead of working together to find a common ground on appropriate levels of enforcement and developing a common touch, we have accusations and counter-accusations questioning motives and arguing about who will lose their job instead of why their job is at risk in the first place.

Here's where judgment comes in. If every claim of overbearing Norwich police conduct I've read or heard this past year is true, then the critics have every right to be mad. If every attempt to raise these concerns with our town manager, the police chief, and individual selectboard members has been rebuffed in the manner reported, the critics have every right to be even madder. But even taking every charge as proven -- conceding the right to outrage -- that right still carries with it the responsibility for the consequences of acting in anger.

Will Norwich be a better place -- will our police force be more responsive -- with all administrative authority dumped back on the selectboard? Isn't this the same selectboard which reportedly has shown itself incapable or unwilling to address these offenses in the first place? Won't the next town committee convened to consider our administrative needs simply bemoan the destructive micromanagement of police staffing by warrant article even as it repeats the same litany of failures which prompted adoption of a town manager back in 2001? Do we really improve the job performance of a town employee by obliterating that employee's position? Do we really get better policing by giving voters a yes-or-no vote on the overall police budget every year? As retribution for past outrages, these warrant articles may prove sweet in the tasting, but galling on the stomach.

I don't know why Norwich needs to work out our differences with verbal and legal sledgehammers. I don't know how or why some pretty gifted politicians on our selectboard weren't able to dampen down this brush fire before it blazed out of control. The creation of a town manager has introduced a bureaucratic sensibility to town government and the creation of a professional fire chief will likely further the effect. The dissonance between a bureaucratic mindset and a small town sense of proportionality has triggered this latest fracas and it won't be the last. Given the clash of cultures between professional government and small town informality; between the necessity of law enforcement and the right to be left alone; given the legal limbo teenagers occupy where they are told they're too young to partake of adult amusements but punished as adults when they disobey, there will be future incidents.

The only solution is better judgment. The judgment to discern circumstances where literal enforcement of certain regulations is disproportionate to the infraction. The judgment to recognize the right of citizens to complain and provide the leadership which addresses the substance of those complaints without being deafened by their tone. The judgment to recognize there is a price in terms of bureaucratic formality we must accept if we expect a higher level of service and performance from town employees. The judgment to remember that every time we gird for battle against some other group in town, we make it harder to live together as a community.

What's right for Norwich in terms of policing, fire protection, and professional management? The right answer is to ask the question openly, with civility, and humbly, accepting that today's response may no longer fit tomorrow, so will need to be asked again soon. Our town manager and police force are town employees, subject to the direction and supervision of our elected selectboard. Their livelihoods and their sense of a job well done, being fallible human beings, depend upon effective direction and fair supervision. Warrant articles can't provide that, but it shouldn't take the threat of such articles to get people's attention. It's time to try something else.

Part One -- On Town Managers and Town Administrators

2007-03-02T05:25:00.000-05:00

I confess bewilderment with the "debate" regarding our town manager and the proposed warrant article seeking to revoke his position. On the one hand, I believe the debate is beset with factual inaccuracies. On the other, I find the debate most telling for what it hasn't addressed. In this post I will touch on the former, concerning structural aspects of the town manager/town administrator debate. In a second post, I will address the latter, revisiting two broader concerns raised at the time we opted for a town manager which might illuminate the difficulties we face today.

Back in 2000, a petition circulated to create a town manager form of government. The warrant article which resulted was defeated at the 2001 Town Meeting with the general understanding that a town committee would research options to improve administration of town services. The "Town Administrative Options Committee" ("TAOC") undertook the task, issuing a report in late 2001 enumerating the administrative challenges faced by the town and weighing the various options to address them.

The TAOC report unanimously recommended adopting a town manager form of government and voters ratified that recommendation by a wide margin at the 2002 Town Meeting. The TAOC report premised its recommendations on the Selectboard's poor performance overseeing administration of town departments at that time. The report identified a tendency of some individual selectboard members to personify town government in their treatment of town employees and volunteers. We concluded that their advocacy of personal political agendas, including efforts to stymie the proposals of some town employees and departments perceived to be allied with other selectboard members, constituted an unacceptable intrusion of politics into what should be the professional administration of town business. Based on these findings, the Report concluded that a professional manager of some kind was essential for better administration overall.

Having determined that professional management was needed, the report turned to a detailed discussion of different types of professional management available under state law. Our Report clearly stated that, under Vermont law (24 V.S.A. §872), a selectboard may delegate aspects of its authority to a town administrator or, under 24 V.S.A. §1236, may effect a specific, wholesale, delegation of executive authority to a town manager. In practical terms, a town administrator granted broad powers by a selectboard might differ very little from a statutorily-defined position of town manager. This aspect of the Report is completely antithetical to Alison May's recent statement, in a February 18th letter to the Valley News, that the Norwich Selectboard "may not delegate any authority to [a town administrator];" a statement which frankly baffles me.

The TAOC ultimately recommended a town manager over a town administrator not -- as Alison suggests in that same letter -- because the selectboard's administrative burden under a town administrator would make policy making "difficult," but rather because the committee felt a professional manager needed the protection of a statutorily-defined job description against further meddling by individual selectboard members. We feared, and forthrightly stated, that a town administrator's selectboard-defined job description would be a perennial political football, undermining administrative coherence and consistency; ultimately leaving the town and her employees where we had started. On this basis alone, we preferred a town manager over a town administrator.

This is not to say a town manager is somehow above selectboard interference, or, for that matter, beyond selectboard control. Vermont law -- 24 V.S.A. §1233 -- provides that, "[i]n all matters he shall be subject to the direction and supervision and shall hold office at the will of such selectmen, who, by majority vote, may remove him at any time for cause."

Thus, just as the shift to a town manager was necessitated by dysfunctional selectboard administration of Norwich town affairs, it should be clear any concerns regarding a town manager's job performance ultimately rest with the "direction and supervision" of that manager provided by the selectboard. The TAOC itself could only recommend the administrative structure it felt was best suited to improving town governance, but the report notes,

"In a small town, the personalities and styles of elected officials, department heads and line employees matter a great deal. Where individuals are willing to work together, the town can thrive no matter how inadequate the organizational chart. When they conflict, and those conflicts are allowed to fester, even the most comprehensive and carefully planned organizational chart becomes irrelevant. Our interviews suggest that both these situations describe Norwich town government. The town suffers from a variety of ongoing conflicts rooted in personality, philosophy, and approach, but also benefits substantially from the dedication and hard work of employees and public servants who have its interests at heart."

Ominously, the TAOC report concludes,

"Still, we do not make our recommendation without misgivings. Our interviews were an education in the numerous ways town and Selectboard politics have made it difficult for town employees to do their jobs well. We have been persuaded that structural changes can improve the administration of town government, the workplace for our town’s employees, and the overall value of tax dollars spent on town government. Adopting a town manager form of government offers the best chance of achieving these administrative improvements. Administrative improvements are only part of the picture, however, and their success hinges on the behavior of the Selectboard and town residents alike."

Here is where this post ends and my second post begins.

Town Manager Deja Vu (Draft for Norwich Happenings)

2007-02-04T18:59:00.000-05:00

Six short years ago, a petition circulated in town asking voters to consider switching to a town manager form of government. The petition received enough signatures to be placed on the ballot for town meeting that year; but was subsequently defeated by voters. At the time, it was generally understood that such a momentous change in government required further study and, upon defeat of the article, a town committee was convened to review the matter in depth. Over the next six months, a committee of nine interviewed town employees and officials, sought input from a number of towns with town managers or town administrators, and reviewed the relevant state law governing town managers. In October, 2001, the committee submitted a 32-page final report to the selectboard unanimously recommending adoption of a town manager at the following town meeting.

This year, a petition bearing nearly 250 signatures was submitted asking voters to consider revoking the town manager structure in favor of a town administrator. The selectboard altered the language of the petition article so it now merely asks whether the voters wish the selectboard to consider creating another town committee to study "the appropriate form of government for Norwich." Whether one feels voters should have been allowed to decide the town manager question or prefers teh advisory article, it's worth dusting off the 2001 Report to understand how we got here and why. It is impractical to digest a thirty-two page report down to 3000 words, but several fundamental points are worth noting.

First, the 2001 Report explains that -- without a town manager or town administrator in place -- a selectboard must act as both the town legislature and implement the town's executive authority. The Report specifically recommended separating the town's legislative and executive authority to clarify lines of authority over town employees and prevent operational matters from becoming bogged down in policy debates. The Report repeatedly identified the intrusiveness of selectboard politics and the resultant lack of civility as exacerbating factors to the town's administrative challenges.

The Report further explains how an elected selectboard is ill-suited to management. By separating the legislative and executive functions, political debate is contained within an elected body while professional management and town employees are insulated from political interference with their duties. This allows management to develop real expertise in the complex fields of financial and personnel management and establishes more consistent execution of town policy. The volunteer nature of our selectboard and the rapid turnover of members through elections had historically undermined that expertise and consistency.

Recognizing the value in establishing more professional management over town affairs, the committee then considered whether that goal could best be achieved by a town manager or a town administrator. As the Report explains, the duties and authority of a town manager are set out in state statute whereas a town administrator's authority is defined by the job description developed by the town selectboard. The committee concluded that the statutory basis for town manager authority would further insulate professional management from political interference. The Report notes that the selectboard's ability to alter a town administrator's job description would likely tempt future selectboard to address management issues by altering the town administrator's job description rather than respecting the separation of authority the town needed. Consequently, the committee unanimously recommended a town manager with statutory authority to act rather than a town administrator who's authority would become an annual election issue subject to alteration by each successive selectboard.

The Report offers a cautionary note. The committee itself could only recommend the administrative structure it felt was best suited to improving town governance, but the Report notes,

"In a small town, the personalities and styles of elected officials, department heads and line employees matter a great deal. Where individuals are willing to work together, the town can thrive no matter how inadequate the organizational chart. When they conflict, and those conflicts are allowed to fester, even the most comprehensive and carefully planned organizational chart becomes irrelevant. Our interviews suggest that both these situations describe Norwich town government. The town suffers from a variety of ongoing conflicts rooted in personality, philosophy, and approach, but also benefits substantially from the dedication and hard work of employees and public servants who have its interests at heart."

Ominously, the Report concludes,

"Still, we do not make our recommendation without misgivings. Our interviews were an education in the numerous ways town and Selectboard politics have made it difficult for town employees to do their jobs well. We have been persuaded that structural changes can improve the administration of town government, the workplace for our town’s employees, and the overall value of tax dollars spent on town government. Adopting a town manager form of government offers the best chance of achieving these administrative improvements. Administrative improvements are only part of the picture, however, and their success hinges on the behavior of the Selectboard and town residents alike."

Overall, the 2001 Report suggests the decision to adopt a town manager structure promised to achieve administrative improvements, but could not guarantee the quality of the human beings hired or elected to maintain those changes over time. It's worth asking whether current complaints about town governance identify structural problems with the administration of town affairs or, rather, are ultimately matters of the personalities and management style of those in authority. If it is the former, then a new town committee may help identify further changes to improve town administration. If it is the latter, however, a town committee is powerless to assist what only elections can change.

Musings on Town Politics

2007-02-02T06:48:00.000-05:00

Norwich is back on the front page once more. This time it's a wrangle over petition wording; what voters will be allowed to decide at Town Meeting; and the fate of our Town Manager. I'll confess the initial article -- in last Friday's Valley News -- elevated my blood pressure some, but I've managed to talk it down and thought I'd share the fruits of my internal debate.

First, some history.

Prior to 2002, this town was run by a select board acting as both legislature (passing ordinances and budgets) and as an executive (managing town department operations). As one might imagine the task was overwhelming. Rather than attempt to collectively manage departments, individual select board members were assigned as "liaisons" to individual departments as a way to divide up the task. Liaisons were to attend meetings and communicate with departments, sharing issues and information with their select board colleagues so collective decisions could be taken.

Results varied. Some departments languished beneath the radar; others effectively utilized their liaison as an advocate for their own interests -- a few becoming so closely identified with individual select board members that budget and policy decisions sometimes became a personal matter between select board members.

Around this same time, Norwich politics had taken a highly partisan tone with the loudest voices viewing most issues in factional terms of us-versus-them. Town departments and employees found themselves walking a narrow path to avoid being perceived as aligned with one faction or the other -- a fraught task where the liaison structure funneled most management communication through individual, often highly partisan, select board members.

Six years ago, amidst some particularly ugly and personal budget arguments at the select board, a frustrated observer organized a petition campaign asking voters to adopt a town manager form of town government. That petition led to an ad hoc town committee which thoroughly examined the town's administrative needs and state law governing town managers and town administrators. The committee contacted a number of Vermont towns to learn of their experience. The final report -- unanimously recommending a town manager -- addressed the pros and cons of each option of town government specifically in the context of our divisive politics. Norwich adopted a town manager form of government at the following town meeting and hired our first town manager in September 2002.

He lasted less than two years.

Our current embattled town manager is nearing a similar milestone.

So what's going on?

For one thing, few seem to have read the October 2001 final report. It's a large document but recommended reading for anyone who wishes to understand how we got here and our options going forward. The report specifically warns that a successful town manager-run town government will require a more restrained select board and greater civility from the townspeople. We've made some progress on both measures, but apparently not enough.

Whether we're talking town managers, class four roads, our police force, gateways, delinquent taxes, or wood-fired boilers, the public discussion seems to quickly elevate to a level of unintended self-parody which is good for Valley News sales, but hard to laugh at ourselves. I've done my fair share of pontificating over the years and, until recently, would have readily given both sides a public tongue-lashing for their roles in another Norwich teapot tempest. Honestly, I've grown tired of the relentless stream of episodes and tired of my own whining about them. Chastened by a look in the mirror, I'm finding some comfort in taking a more philosophical approach and offer these observations.

First, warrant article petitions are a very blunt instrument of government, but apparently an effective method of communication. Both the 2000 petition to adopt a town manager and our 2006 petition to abandon town managers misunderstood the statutory consequences should they succeed. State law requires a change in government almost immediately after such a petition is adopted at town meeting. Consequently, while both petitions were meant to break a political logjam and prompt debate on overall town governance, neither actually offer any time for that debate to occur. That said, the 2000 effort led indirectly to thoughtful and deliberate consideration of town governance and significant changes. Perhaps we're on a similar, indirect, path with the current petition.

Second, we all ought to wonder why such petitions are necessary in the first place. How is it that a town, and town government, of such modest size can require such forceful methods to engage discontent? While 250 signatures may be a small percentage of the town's population, they comprise one third to one quarter of our typical voter turnout and signify substantial disaffection with the status quo. One would think good management -- or at least savvy politicians -- would notice the wind change and respond. One would hope the regular business of town government would provide a forum for the discontent underlying the petition efforts; a forum for venting, being heard, and working through some of these matters without the unilateral winner-takes-all implications of petitions.

Stepping back a bit, it isn't hard to see why this must be so. People are busy, talk is cheap, and who's to say there's substantial discontent until you see how many signatures a petition receives. Norwich seems to host a disproportionate number of people accustomed to getting our own way. This slants our political discourse decidedly in favor of loud, self-certain expression. We're a community of squeaky wheels and there's only so much grease to go around. Under the circumstances, it's inevitable the prime greasers in Tracy Hall will catch some flak.

It may also simply be a fact that the attributes which prompt individuals to seek elected office and help them get elected are not necessarily conducive to good management. Good managers shun popularity contests, instead relying upon having a keen ear to the ground. So our elected representatives survive by riding the waves rather than understanding their source. In this instance, our select board can likely be relied upon to manage the short-term crisis of an awkward warrant article, but it's doubtful they even grasp the underlying causes. Similarly, our town manager will likely recalibrate his ear, tuning into a larger constituency than he has up to now, a bit more wary from the experience. It's certainly a messy way to govern ourselves but, apart from some bruised egos, it's a reasonably responsive system.

Is there any reason to believe a town assistant would fare any better than a town manager under these circumstances?

Which leads me to an uncomfortable suspicion. Perhaps these past eight years of faction and self-righteousness aren't the exception to a more civil state of affairs, but rather typify the new reality. Perhaps we're simply a small pond with a lot of aspiring big fish; a town which is now predominantly self-selected; a population with little, if any, cultural connection to the agrarian small-town houses and landscape we now occupy. Perhaps small town life in an affluent transplant community is really simply our national political and cultural existence writ small. If so, we ought to resign ourselves to the spectacle of a small, vocal minority tussling for power and the opportunity to use it to negate their opponents at every step. The tactics -- the absence of grace or humility in their application -- are a corrosive, gradually reducing democracy to a concept no more meaningful than the right to complain. That tussle, and our tolerance for it, are becoming the public face of this community, perhaps deservedly so. It's a harsh and chastening mirror.

Draft Save the Entrance Fund FAQ's

2007-01-30T12:58:00.000-05:00

While agnostic about the effort to purchase the gateway property from Simpson Development, I lent a hand to the group in their fundraising efforts. Here is an initial draft of FAQ's. The Save the Entrance Fund group felt went a bit too far and the final version sent to prospective donors was substantially edited:

Frequently Asked Questions - Save the Entrance Fund

“Who are you and why do you want my money?”

We're your neighbors, dismayed by the prospect of a very large five-townhouse complex dominating the entrance to town for our lifetimes and beyond. Simpson Development Corp. (“SDC”) has offered us one last chance to conserve this parcel, but the selling price is $580,000and the deadline is March 1st. If we are able to purchase this property, the open field will be preserved; the woods behind and below it maintained for public trails. If we fail, future residents will wonder how we ever allowed this to happen.

“$580,000 is an outrageous price for an empty field! Are you crazy?”

We're not just buying an empty field. SDC bought the empty field at about half this price a few years ago. We're buying the field and SDC's right to build a 120' x 50' x 35' structure comprised of five three-story townhouses on that field; a structure which will dominate the entrance to town for our lifetimes and some time beyond. Is it worth the price?

Try this: Next time you drive into town, consider the Burton House building at the corner of Elm and Main – the building that houses the wine store, Allechante, Northern Lights Wool, etc. The entire Burton House structure is roughly the same dimensions as the planned SDC townhouses. Now imagine a structure that size plunked down on this empty field, looming over us all as we come and go from town. Will $580,000 seem like an outrageous price once these townhouses are built?

“Why didn't the Town buy this for half the price when they had a chance?”

Hindsight's 20/20. No one clamoured to buy this property because no one imagined such a large project would ever be built there. We should not assume the open land we now enjoy will remain open. We need to act while we can to conserve these open spaces or accept the additional cost in hesitating.

“How did the Town ever allow this to happen?”

The Town didn't allow this to happen. In fact, short of raising taxes to buy the property, it's hard to imagine what more the Town could have done to prevent this. Nearly a decade ago, our Conservation Commission identified this parcel, and several other open spaces in town, as scenic resources worth regulating so their scenic attributes weren't lost forever. Our Planning Commission agreed and incorporated measures to protect these parcels into our subdivision regulations. Our Selectboard reviewed these changes in a series of public meetings and adopted them in 2001.

When SDC submitted their application, our Development Review Board conducted a number of public hearings to review the project. The DRB issued a unanimous 13-page decision specifying how SDC's plans run afoul of our subdivision regulations. SDC appealed that ruling to the state Environmental Court and our Selectboard spent more than $17,000 defending the DRB decision on appeal. A single judge -- without reviewing the DRB's written decision -- ruled in favor of SDC.

Similarly, when the SDC proposal was submitted for Act 250 review, our Planning Commission, Conservation Commission, and Selectboard all urged the District Commission to follow the DRB decision and deny the permit. The Act 250 District Commission ruled that they were bound to follow the Environmental Court's earlier decision and granted the permit.

So here we are -- nearly out of options -- simply trying to effect a policy supported by every town body with authority to regulate or review this project. The Valley News, and other self-appointed arbiters of common sense, think this is simply a matter of personal taste. They're wrong. This community, through the authority bestowed upon it by the laws of this state, and subject to open public review throughout , has tried its level best to regulate development on this parcel for the common benefit of all present and future residents. Those who take issue with that goal take issue with the result of a public and democratic process. Our fundraising effort, despite the catcalls, is nothing less.

“Wouldn't this money be better spent on affordable housing?”

This is a bizarre criticism. First of all, at the time our fundraising effort began, the Agway property was under contract for purchase as an affordable housing development. Our fundraising was never to the exclusion of fundraising for affordable housing or any other worthy cause. The town has an affordable housing committee which is considering a campaign to raise funds for just that purpose. The fact the Agway property fell through doesn't appoint us to replace the affordable housing committee or run their fundraising effort. Public spirit, community, and charitable giving aren't zero-sum efforts. Does every dollar Jim Kenyon spent on his SUV or gave to his alma mater mean a dollar less given to local charities?

The enemy of charity is not competition among worthy causes, but rather the cynicism that characterizes good intentions as sanctimony. We have no doubt many contributors to our effort will also contribute to an affordable housing committee effort and other worthy causes in the area.

“I won't give a penny to Simpson Development! It's like giving in to blackmail!”

Did the previous owner of your house blackmail you into buying by putting it on the market where it might be sold to someone else? Whatever one may think of SDC's townhouse scheme, they're in the business of developing property and selling that property for a profit. Don't begrudge SDC for seeing an opportunity no one else saw. They've risked hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase, permit, and litigate their right to develop “an empty field.” It would be wonderful if SDC decided to give the parcel to the town for free, but that's not going to happen. Take a moment and ask yourself whether, driving past these townhouses a year from now, you'll still think this was ultimately a matter of whether you liked SDC.

“Do you really think you'll raise the full amount by the March 1st deadline?”

We simply don't know. When SDC approached us last fall, we had no bargaining power. We'll have more with every dollar we raise. So far, we've received strong support from a wide range of townspeople despite some very negative press. It's the final stretch and our success depends on your participation.

“What happens to my contribution if we don't raise enough to buy the parcel?”

All donations are made to a designated fund held by our Conservation Commission. If we fall short, we'll offer donors the option to shift their donations to the Conservation Commission's general conservation fund. Otherwise, their donations will be refunded.

“Is my donation tax-deductible?”

Yes, all donations made to the Fund are fully deductible.

Response to Gateway Posts

2006-12-04T15:28:00.000-05:00

"Alice Worth" wrote in yesterday's listserv:

Watt: Perhaps you can cite the standard or concept in the zoning and subdivision regulations upon which the DRB denied the Simpson Development Corporation’s plan. This would be helpful to understanding the different interpretations (judge, Simpson, Development Review Board, Gateway comm.)

Alice, the DRB's 14-page written decision on the SDC proposal should be available from Phil Dechert, our Zoning Administrator. The primary factors are the Norwich Subdivision Regulations Section 3.3(I) "Scenic Resources" and 3.4 "District Settlement Pattern." The written decision is self-explanatory, but Phil can also provide copies of the relevant regulations as well.

"Alice Worth" wrote:

For a town to work collaboratively with a developer to act in the best interests of the town in upholding the town’s values is absolutely not illusory. It happens all the time. And this doesn’t mean to break the rules, show favoritism etc. It means working together to interpret the desires of the town vis a vis the town plans, charters etc. to “do the right thing”.

There is no questions towns can and do work collaboratively with developers in many municipalities. Philosophically, I agree that towns and developers collaborating along the lines you suggest would be a constructive and economical approach. In practice, however, there are some very basic problems with this approach.

First off, under Vermont law, development review boards apply regulations to applications. Under our regulations, the Norwich DRB has very limited discretion to weigh various criteria, let alone negotiate trade-offs with developers such as SDC. I think SDC was very frustrated with our DRB for just this reason. They wanted to negotiate waivers on certain criteria in exchange for certain benefits to the town.
Interesting idea, but our zoning and subdivision regulations don't confer anything like that authority to our DRB. This is a basic fact of law. In light of this, the earlier comment that the DRB should have done otherwise simply doesn't comport with reality.

Secondly, the idea of a "town" collaborating with a developer begs the question of who it is that represents the town in such negotiations. Would it be the Selectboard? The Town Manager? The Planning Commission? Should our regulations be redrafted to give that authority to the DRB?

I saw an recent email from someone on this list suggesting that the majority of Norwich residents want the Simpson property conserved and undeveloped. I received an email last week from our Zoning Administrator suggesting the majority of Norwich residents wouldn't really mind the SDC townhouses. Who decides? Who speaks for the town? What if they negotiate something a large portion of the town utterly reject?

None of this has arisen in a vacuum. One of the reasons the DRB has so little discretionary authority under our subdivision regulations is because a number of the people active in drafting those regulations felt that discretionary authority had been abused in the past. We've seen the Planning Commission striven to the point of paralysis by factional struggle these past six years. Is there really any representative in town who could act as a constructive negotiating partner with a
developer who wouldn't have to brave the slings and arrows of a tense and fragmented town?

My frustration with the earlier email -- perhaps intemperately expressed -- is rooted in the tendency to retrospectively determine that this mess could somehow have been averted. I disagree. Given the players and regulations in place, I can't see how it could have turned out any other way. If we want to avert a repeat performance, all of us have to work harder to learn from these mistakes and help fashion the town we want.

As importantly, we need to try harder to listen to divergent points of view to be sure we're hearing the potential flaws in our own opinions and the legitimate needs of others who may see things quite differently.

Recent changes to state law regarding the role of advisory committees in both planning and permitting offer what I believe might be practical and concrete alternatives to our current practice which could move us towards a more collaborative relationship to developers and divergent development interests. I've pointed out these changes and asked for a town committee to review them in letters to the Selectboard and Planning Commission, Norwich Happenings and Valley News over the past 18 months.

I've never received a single response from any of those letters. That is not an accusation of some conspiracy of silence, but rather a stark portrait of how little time and interest there is in town right now to ask the big questions about what's not working and what we might do better.

The supposition that this Simpson matter would have reached a positive result if the DRB hadn't screwed this up is one of those simple answers that ignore the tough questions. Until we start addressing those tough questions, and stop pointing fingers, it's all just idle chatter; guaranteeing the same results in the future and discouraging good people from putting themselves forward to try to make a difference.

Warren Thayer and the Simpson development

2006-12-03T15:25:00.000-05:00

Regarding Warren's statement (from yesterday's listserv posting):

"Just a minor point that was a big one to me for awhile, regarding the Simpson development, and trails through it - and why the Conservation Commission "didn't do anything" about it."

I certainly wasn't suggesting the Conservation Commission "didn't do anything" about the Simpson proposal nor that it should have done anything specific. I was simply pointing out that the permitting process suffers from the lack of formal procedures which would preview major projects for relevant town commissions such as Conservation and Corridor Enhancement. Without formal procedures of this kind the idea of collaborative development which coordinates a subdivision project with corridor enhancement and property conservation is a pipe dream.

Warren was an active participant in the early DRB hearings, but his individual participation is quite different than the Conservation Commission acting as an advisory committee with a formal role in development review. To that end,while a number of people have raised the idea that SDC will conserve part of the parcel in question and create a trail easement across that parcel, that has not yet been done, to my knowledge. It's important for those who want to see a trail easement in place to attend the remaining DRB hearings in this matter to make sure that becomes a condition of the final approval.

Land Swap Ideas

2006-12-02T16:20:00.000-05:00

As a follow-up to the land swap post on teh listserv from earlier today, Alison May succinctly summarizes some of the practical obstacles developing the fire/police property would face:

"Unfortunately, even if fire/police could move to Agway (probable total cost would be c.$2.5 million vs c$2 million to stay where they are), the land on which they are now situated, and which the town owns, is only 1.33 acres. Septic capacity in that area is dicey at best - there are pretty wet portions of the land. Whether they qualify as true wetlands I don't know. There have been real problems with septic in the swale that goes over to Carpenter Street. So I rather doubt, even though it would be wonderful, if more than a couple of units could be built."

Alison is probably right about the limited development potential of the fire/police 1.33 acres alone. As discussed on a broad email list in October 2005 when this idea was first really bandied about, the potential to co-develop these 1.33 acres with the Norwich Senior Housing and possibly adjoining parcel currently for sale could create a significant combined parcel capable of much higher density development. All of these questions would need to be resolved through in-depth investigation, but should not themselves dissuade us, as a town, from considering relocating emergency services to the Agway parcel.

The Beat Goes On . . .

2006-12-01T15:23:00.000-05:00

It appears that Housing Vermont has pulled out of the contract to buy the Agway parcel and develop it for affordable housing due to contingency problems. This means the property is back on the market and the idea of a significant affordable housing development on that property is now effectively dead.

I was actually an opponent of the Agway project. For one, I think large residential developments of any kind belong nearer where there are services to support them. Otherwise, we're simply extending development sprawl and another isolated subdivision -- in this instance one with a defined income range. Similarly, I objected to the special amendment to our zoning regulations specifically permitting the Agway development as our existing zoning would not permit such a large evelopment in that area.

Instead, I argued for a land swap which would have seen the town's emergency services relocated to a new structure on the quasi-industrial Agway parcel and the vacated fire and police locations redeveloped -- together with Norwich Senior Housing -- into a more dense cluster of mixed-income and senior housing which would allow residents an easy walk to school and services in the village center -- placing dense development where our town plan and regulations say it belongs. The land swap idea never gained any traction.

The collapse of the Agway affordable housing effort and the recent discussions regarding new emergency services facilities would seem to provide an ideal opportunity to reopen this discussion and prompt people to begin researching our options. As a first step, I encourage you to contact the Selectboard, Planning Commission and Affordable Housing Committee asking them to investigate the idea of relocating the town's emergency facilities to the Agway parcel while there's still time to acquire that parcel.

Get Off Our Duff's Day (Valley News - Op-Ed)

2006-11-02T13:09:00.000-05:00

To the Editor:

We hold to certain political myths despite all the evidence to the contrary. There’s the inevitable election cycle hand-wringing that the current election is somehow more negative than elections past. Or the idea that the votes of a plurality of a minority of eligible voters somehow constitutes a “mandate” to govern by the majority.

Nearer to home, much is made of “town meeting” as though it manifests a more pure, meaningful, and participatory method of self-government. However, anyone who regularly attends town meeting can tell you it is often less participatory democracy than a lecture hall informational session: Elected town officials explain to a minority of town voters what was decided in preceding months of budgetary meetings and why they should approve those decisions. The myth of town meeting is not necessarily a bad thing. Certainly, there’s something to be said for having the Selectboard and school board stand before the electorate to account for their respective budgets. However, our praise is misplaced when we focus on town meeting to the neglect of participatory town government.

Take an evening drive through any small Vermont or New Hampshire town and you’ll likely see lights burning in a few windows of town hall. Inside you’ll find local volunteers spending their evening slogging away at the real stuff of self-government, be they planning or conservation commissioners, permitting boards, or members of myriad ad-hoc town committees and commissions trying to work together to do what’s best for their town and fellow townspeople. They work without pay -- often without meaningful budgetary or staff support – taking time from their families and their leisure to make something more of the community they’ve inherited. They do it because they feel they owe something to their community or simply because they want to be involved and belong.

Unfortunately, in a society growing ever more complex, regulatory, and litigious, the disincentives to volunteer participation are also growing. As life feels busier, it’s easy to feel out-of-touch with “what’s going on” in town government. Finding the time to figure out what’s happening, let alone where one might want to put one’s efforts, slips down the list of priorities until it’s not much more than a dull guilty feeling that one isn’t more involved.

Here in Norwich, a small group of us have decided to do something about it. We’ve rented space in the local elementary school for the Saturday before Town Meeting to conduct a “Get Off Your Duff Day.” It is a day where townspeople can meet the people serving on the various volunteer boards in town, learn about what they do and hope to achieve, understand the time commitment involved, and enter the on-going debate of town government. The goal is to make “what’s going on” tangible for those who wish to know and break down the distance between those who are making it happen and those who would like to. We hope this will become an annual tradition in Norwich to accompany Town Meeting and wouldn’t mind at all if the idea spread to neighboring communities.

The Myth of Local Control (Valley News Op-Ed)

2006-07-04T13:47:00.000-04:00

To the Editor:

As your readers may recall, sixteen months ago the Norwich Development Review Board denied Simpson Development Corporation's application to construct a five-unit townhouse complex on Main Street. Simpson appealed to the Vermont Environmental Court and this past week, Judge Thomas Durkin vacated the Norwich DRB decision, granting Simpson Development intermediate subdivision approval. As former Chair of the Norwich DRB, I am disappointed with Judge Durkin's decision, not because there was anything inherently disastrous with the Simpson Development plan, but rather for what Judge Durkin's decision says about the role of local planning and permitting boards, belying the myth of local citizen authority to shape future development in our communities.

The facts underlying the appeal are pretty straightforward. Simpson Development is entitled to a two-unit dwelling on the site in question under Norwich zoning regulations. However, they applied for a five-unit townhouse planned residential development which requires review under Norwich's recently updated subdivision regulations. After several public hearings, the Norwich DRB, in a unanimous thirteen-page decision, determined that the proposed five-unit townhouse ran afoul of certain aspects of our subdivision regulations and denied the application for the larger, five-unit, development. Simpson Development disagreed and appealed our decision to the Vermont Environmental Court.

Generally, a right to appeal an earlier decision is offered to provide an aggrieved party some recourse from errors or arbitrary decisions by lower courts or boards. Under Vermont law, appeals from local permitting boards are reviewed de novo, meaning the judge hears the appeal as though he or she were the local permitting board and without regard to the local board's earlier decision. Judge Durkin's decision clearly illustrates how de novo appeal from local permitting board decisions frustrates local community control over land use development and mocks the democratic process required to exercise that control.

Since the late 1960's, Vermont has pursued an admirable experiment in land use governance which delegates authority over land development to local communities emphasizing citizen participation in both planning and permitting. The values animating this effort are simple and uniquely American: The authority to govern reposes with the people. The authority to govern local land use development is best exercised by the local people. Because land use implicates the individual rights of individual citizens to use their land as they see fit, both planning and permitting decisions need to be open to public scrutiny and legal safeguards must be created to avoid arbitrary decisions. This tension between individual rights and community governance is best sorted out by requiring communities to adopt, and periodically revisit, local planning and permitting regulations through a series of mandated public hearings. There are no guarantees that the local people will always make the right decision, but there is some assurance the decisions will be made by the people who will have to live with the results.

As required by Vermont law, Norwich began a comprehensive revision of our town plan in the early 1990's. The town plan sets out broad development and land use governance goals for the town and was drafted through a long series of public meetings and subcommittee work. These revisions were adopted by the town in 1996. For the next five years, our Planning Commission revised our subdivision regulations to implement some of the specific development goals articulated in the town plan. Another series of public meetings ensued and the planning commission's draft was finally adopted by our Selectboard in 2002. On a parallel track, our Conservation Commission drafted an "Inventory of Scenic Resources" intended to guide future permitting decisions to preserve specific scenic areas within our community. The Planning Commission and Selectboard adopted this "Scenic Inventory" whole cloth into our current subdivision regulations, mandating that our Development Review Board ("DRB") review applications to avoid adverse impacts to those resources.

The rubber hits the road in the permitting process. Here, in a series of public hearings, the Norwich DRB reviewed Simpson Development's five-unit townhouse proposal according to the regulations drafted and adopted by our townspeople. Under the subdivision regulations, the proposed site for these townhouses is identified as a scenic resource, framing the "gateway to the village" for those entering Norwich from the Route 5/Interstate 91 intersections. Furthermore, our subdivision regulations explicitly require that subdivisions be designed to "reflect the desired settlement pattern" of the surrounding zoning district -- in this instance the Village Residential District and the gateway transition to that district. The Norwich DRB determined that the size and prominence of the proposed development would adversely impact the "gateway to the village" as described in the "Scenic Inventory." The DRB further determined that the prominence and placement of the proposed development would disrupt the "desired settlement pattern" of this "gateway" as described in the subdivision regulations and "Scenic Inventory."

It should be obvious to anyone -- as it was to the entire DRB membership at the time our decision was issued -- that questions of "adverse impact" to scenic resources and "desired settlement patterns" are highly subjective determinations. On appeal -- and de novo review -- Judge Durkin faced precisely the same subjective determinations and saw them differently. It is not Judge Durkin's fault, but a function of Vermont law, that he reviewed the appeal and made his findings without any knowledge of, or reference to, the DRB's detailed written decision. In this vacuum, he found that the size and prominence of the proposed development would indeed impact the scenic gateway to town, but felt that impact wouldn't be "adverse." On the contrary, he found that the proposed structure "will more clearly announce that a traveler is now entering the Village." Regarding the desired settlement pattern of the "gateway," Judge Durkin felt there was no disruption.

Judge Durkin's decision begs a question which goes to the heart of Vermont's land use planning and permitting regime: Why on earth are local permitting decisions reviewed de novo? Where, as here, highly subjective determinations are required to ascertain consistency with settlement patterns and the scale of impact upon scenic resources, shouldn't those determinations be made by local land owners who live in the town and will have to live with the results? Why are the subjective determinations of a unanimous seven-member local citizen board simply cast aside in favor of the subjective determinations of a single Vermont judge? What qualifies Judge Durkin to assess the quality of a "scenic resource" which Norwich townspeople democratically chose, identified, articulated, reviewed, and adopted as local land use law. One may question the aesthetic value of our "scenic gateway," but you can't question the fact we, as a town, chose it and adopted specific regulations meant to protect it. As has been said before, the people have the right to be wrong. Here, oddly, Vermont judges do too.

It is an anachronism of Vermont law that this local control is subverted entirely by de novo review upon appeal. There must be a right of appeal from local permitting decisions to protect individual land owners from arbitrary decisions, unfair proceedings, and legal errors, but the standard of review for those appeals should give deference to the factual findings of the local permitting board. Here, Simpson Development's appeal made no claim that their rights had been violated, their application unfairly treated, or that the DRB had exceeded its authority. Rather, they simply wanted a second chance at getting their project approved, this time by a judge instead of a citizen board. The law allows this type of appeal and, had I been their lawyer, I would have raised the idea with them myself. However, there is a real cost in terms of lawyers fees, court resources, and wasted effort by citizen volunteers which shouldn't be ignored.

There is much more at stake here than a mere legal point or a bunch of townhouses on Main Street, Norwich. Here, we have a clear example of local citizen authority to shape local development in our communities giving way to lawyers and well-funded, determined applicants. It is a mockery of the countless hundreds of hours spent by volunteers in a conscientious effort to shape the future of our towns that those efforts can so easily be cast aside and the ultimate decisions left to a bunch of lawyers in a courtroom somewhere else. The noble experiment of democratic, volunteer-based self-government still survives in the habits and expectations of small Vermont towns and the people who live here, but it's under assault daily by the litigiousness and regulatory complexity of our broader society. The fate of this experiment rests with us and our unwillingness to simply acquiesce. Please call your representative and state senators to discuss this issue; volunteer with your local planning and permitting boards; and say hello to Simpson Development's latest project, the new gateway to Norwich.

Open Letter to SB - Affordable Housing at Agway

2005-11-08T13:22:00.000-05:00

To the Norwich Selectboard:

I am writing in my individual capacity as a citizen so my comments should not be construed as reflecting the opinion of the Norwich Development Review Board or any of its members.
Elsewhere, I have expressed my concerns regarding the amendment of our zoning and subdivision regulations for the purpose of accommodating a single proposed development. Apart from any broad philosophical or political concerns regarding what is, in all but name, “spot-zoning;” I think there are practical regulatory ramifications which the Selectboard ought to consider carefully before voting.

Article III of the Norwich Subdivision Regulations (“NSR”) sets out planning and design standards which every subdivision and planned residential development must meet to receive permitting approval from the DRB. One aspect of these standards concerns density. The Planning Commission’s current proposal specifically seeks to alter those standards for the purpose of accommodating the Agway project. It’s clear the Planning Commission has considered the density changes carefully and I won’t second-guess their decision here.

My concern is that spot-zoning to accommodate the Agway project has only addressed density issues without considering the full range of planning and design standards any applicant seeking to develop the Agway parcel will face. I have no opinion regarding, or knowledge of, the specific characteristics of the Agway parcel which may implicate Article III restrictions. However, I would direct you specifically to NSR 3.4 (District Settlement Patterns) and the DRB’s review of the recent Simpson Development application within the Village Residential District under this criterion.

The DRB has insisted on any number of occasions that its authority begins and ends with the Town’s zoning and subdivision bylaws. Everyone should appreciate that the 2002 revision of the subdivision bylaws created very specific and often highly restrictive limits to subdivision development. It is the DRB’s duty to apply these regulations literally. The DRB’s authority to depart from the plain language of these restrictions is specifically circumscribed by specific waiver authority language.

Do the prospective developers of the Agway parcel have a preference between Village Residential and Rural Residential settlement patterns? It will make a difference come the permitting stage. Our recent decision in Simpson, another proposed development at the outer edge of the Village Residential District, should highlight for everyone the importance of respecting the language of our regulations and remaining consistent to that language despite public pressure for or against a given development. If the proposed Agway development is not expected to reflect the Village Settlement Pattern, further amendment to these bylaws may be in order.

Open Letter on Agway Proposal Op-Ed

2005-10-27T16:36:00.001-04:00

I read your Letter to the Editor in this morning's Valley News and thought I'd take the opportunity to answer the rhetorical question you pose. I don't know what "they" are afraid of, but I'm afraid of two things.

First, I fear that we are betraying the stated purpose of our land use regulations for a politically expedient one-off project. Second, I fear the finger-pointing and distrust among different townspeople have almost entirely choked off the forum for honest and candid debate.

Our 1996 Town Plan, and the revised subdivision regulations enacted subsequent to that Plan clearly, explicitly, and repeatedly state that our land use regulations should focus intensive development where higher density already exists. Our subdivision regulations adopt the existing zoning designations as threshold criteria to determine where higher density development may occur. The Agway project, as proposed, does not meet these criteria for that property. Everyone I've heard address this issue -- for and against the Agway project -- takes for granted the idea that it's perfectly alright to amend the zoning and subdivision regulations to address a single development project. I disagree.

Every single landowner who has come before the Town's permitting boards in recent years has faced the stark fact their right to develop their land is subject to the terms of our land use regulations. These land use regulations limit the development potential of properties all over town and their impact is real. Those who are denied subdivisions miss out on countless thousands, even millions, of dollars in potential income had they been allowed to develop as they proposed.

Right now, Simpson Development is appealing a decision by our Development Review Board which concluded that our land use regulations restrict the more intensive development they proposed at the edge of the Village Residential District. Shame on Simpson Development for not asking the Planning Commission to amend the subdivision regulations to allow their project? Shame on the DRB for not realizing the Town doesn't really take these regulations that seriously?

Some may say the difference is that Simpson was proposing market rate housing and the Agway project is proposing affordable housing. But our existing land use regulations make provisions for increased density where affordable housing is proposed and the proposed Agway project still doesn't meet our regulations.

So what do we do?

On the one hand, we can proceed as we now appear intent upon doing; namely, amend our regulations on a one-off basis to allow the Agway project as proposed. I won't lay down in front of the bulldozers should that come to pass, but I want everyone who supports that route to recognize the hypocrisy of amending our regulations where politically convenient while telling all the other land owners interested in developing their property that they're stuck with the regulations as written.

Don't comfort yourselves with the assumption that it's only Simpson Development and those seeking to build "huge house after huge house" that seek permits under our existing regulations. We've seen applicants looking to subdivide so their children can live in a modest house or trailer next door. We've seen applicants hoping to fund a house otherwise beyond their means by subdividing and selling off a portion of the land they own. Part of our affordability crisis in town can be traced to the limited development opportunities allowed under our existing regulations.

The other alternative, which I've been advocating, is to continue to take our land use regulations seriously and ask the questions those regulations demand of us. Do our current land use regulations permit the Agway project as proposed? No. Then what options do our land use regulations offer to increase the availability of affordable housing in this Town? In the Rural Residential District, where the Agway property and the vast majority of land in Norwich resides, Planned Residential Developments are available which allow a density boost for dedicated affordable units. But this won't accommodate the numbers and density proposed for the Agway site and we've already heard Housing Vermont and Twin Pines don't see the economies of scale necessary to go forward.

The other alternative is to seek higher density projects within the Village Residential District. One potential site where higher density development could occur would be the combined fire/police and Senior Housing parcels. If there were the political will to build housing consistent with our existing regulations, the opportunity to redevelop the emergency services and senior housing parcels holds great potential. I'd hope such redevelopment would strive to create mixed-income housing while incorporating the existing senior housing capacity simply because I think experience has shown mixed-income housing is more sustainable and seniors belong downtown where services are easily accessible.

I don't think redevelopment of these properties can, or should, reach the number of affordable units proposed by the Agway project. Instead, I think we get a more integrated, more sustainable project consistent with our land use regulations. I may be criticized for this incremental approach, but the number of units proposed for the Agway parcel has been dictated by the economics of the developer, not the characteristics of the land or our regulations. A successful redevelopment on the emergency services/senior housing parcels may help demystify "affordable housing" and allay fears of what such projects mean to existing neighborhoods, paving the way for future projects which can continue to pare down the affordability gap and offer more diverse housing stock we purport to want.

The opportunity to relocate emergency services to the Agway parcel and redevelop downtown along the lines outlined above has been raised a number of times over the past year. The response from the Selectboard has been underwhelming and the reasons offered to suggest why it wouldn't work seem pretty thin. Which brings me to my second fear.

In our current political climate can the Selectboard afford to pause and contemplate the options? Elections are five months away. Why would anyone facing reelection want to risk being branded as one of "them," afraid of affordable housing and standing in the way of democracy? Honest, well-meaning people can disagree about both the means and the ends involved in this debate. But why bother when you face such vocal criticism by those convinced there is only one answer and only one way to get there? In my opinion, there are some very irresponsible public figures in our Town who can't be bothered to entertain alternative points of view and cynically play real issues to settle political scores. That poison seems to me to be spreading and it won't stop until townspeople try harder to resist the easy path which paints everything black and white and deafens us to honest disagreement.

I've raised what I feel to be serious and honest concerns about regulation through amendment and I won't accept being branded as "anti-affordable housing" or "development-a-phobic" for asking honest questions. I didn't think I was a "they" or a "them" but I'm probably just old-fashioned and naive. I thought we were an "us," a community of people tied together by the fact we're responsible for governing ourselves. That means the loud few who keep us in the Valley News and Spectator as well as the reticent many whose ranks appear to increase with each election cycle. We have the freedom to govern ourselves and only ourselves to blame when we allow that freedom to be determined by the loud few through our acquiescence. I am absolutely certain Norwich will build the type of affordable housing it deserves. I'm afraid Norwich will build the type of affordable housing it deserves.

Off-Kilter - Harriet Miers, Abortion, and the Supreme Court (Valley News Op-Ed)

2005-10-26T14:16:00.000-04:00

While no fan of George Bush or his judicial nominees, I can’t help but wince at Steve Nelson’s Oct. 16 assessment of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. As usual, this nomination was greeted by a torrent of verbiage telling us what a Supreme Court justice “should be.” These criteria, unsurprisingly, change with each nominee and generally reflect the political convictions of the writer. In Nelson’s column, we learn that he doesn’t like Miers, but the arguments say a great deal more about Nelson than they do about Miers.

First, Nelson makes the mistake of patronizing his opponents. He begins by gleefully rubbing his hands over the political storm that greeted Miers’ nomination. Citing the backlash within social conservative circles, Nelson questions how these critics can be so dense, claiming one “needn’t have supernatural powers” to know who Miers is and why she was nominated.

Lacking supernatural powers myself, I come to a completely different conclusion as to who she may be and why she has been forwarded by this administration. I think the Miers nomination speaks volumes about George Bush’s limited room to maneuver and reflects the Republican Party’s increasingly strained coalition.

Controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, the GOP could conceivably ram through another Robert Bork or Antonin Scalia, but has chosen not to. Why? The pundits and media, sniffing fire hydrants, blame Bush’s ham-handed management or simply enjoy the whiff of internal dissension so much they don’t bother digging further. I think the answer is plain to see and the social conservative backlash confirms it. The Republican Party cannot afford to see Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling on abortion rights, overturned.

Bush knows this, the Republican leadership know this, and now they’re doing back flips to obscure the fact from their social conservative supporters.

The Republican Party is a delicate balance of factions united in their opposition to the social and fiscal policies of the Democrats. With each passing year in power at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, it’s becoming more difficult for the Republicans to stake out ground on fiscal matters. Conveniently, the Republicans can continue to stoke partisan outrage and oppose the Democrats’ social policies so long as Roe remains law.

Should a Republican-appointed Supreme Court overturn Roe, all bets are off. The outrage at what social conservatives see as government-sanctioned murder would be transformed to the outrage that libertarians, social liberals and a huge number of non-ideologues would feel at government intrusion into the most intimate, personal matters of conscience. Repudiation of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court would be a watershed event dwarfing the groundswell in social conservative circles that greeted the original decision, likely splitting the current Republican coalition irretrievably.

Pollsters from both parties have known this for decades and, oddly enough, Roe is a centerpiece in recruiting for each.

Viewed in this context, Miers is certainly a stealth nominee, but her ideology is meant to escape detection not from the Steve Nelsons of America, but rather from the core social conservative supporters the Republicans will depend upon in 2006 and beyond. Some will dismiss this analysis as fanciful or too clever by half, but they ignore the evidence. Why do Republican court nominees always skirt the Roe controversy at their hearings? None hesitate to discuss Brown v. Board of Education despite the fact that its practical meaning remains subject to litigation in cases about desegregation and reverse discrimination.

If Republicans were confident that a majority of voters felt Roe was an obvious injustice, they wouldn’t hesitate to press the issue, using nomination hearings to press home the fact that Democrats were out of touch with that majority. As it is, the Republicans couldn’t even muster a majority of senators to support an avowedly anti-Roe nominee. Many social conservative activists are up in arms because they see the Miers appointment consolidating the 5-4 decision in the 1992 Casey ruling, which saw three Republican nominees, Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, join the 5-4 majority and hold fast on Roe as settled law. Chief Justice Roberts has already hinted he views Casey, and consequently Roe, as settled law. Miers shows every indication of lacking the overt ideology that has made Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia heroes among social conservatives.

Bush campaigned twice on the position that he would appoint overt ideologues such as Scalia and Thomas to the Supreme Court if elected. He’s blatantly reneged on that promise, and one must ask why. Why endure the internal dissension and public attacks for going back on his word? Because he has no choice.

Besides misreading Bush’s motives, Nelson’s column also indulges in intellectual bigotry. In Nelson’s universe, all “born-again” Christians such as Miers are social conservatives lacking Souter’s “agile and open mind.” He then offers George Will and David Brooks — two columnists who earn their bread writing condescendingly and authoritatively about every topic imaginable — as proof that Miers lacks “intellectual distinction.” Apparently Will possesses “the list” of our nation’s best legal minds and Miers doesn’t appear on it. Brooks, for his part, finds Texas Bar Association newsletters full of “vapid abstractions,” which any lawyer can tell you is a hallmark of every bar association newsletter in this country. Nelson cozies on in with these odd bedfellows to regale us with a novel legal distinction between judges who decide cases based on “an objective review of the facts” (apparently a bad thing) and those who properly hover in the ether of constitutional jurisprudence, “arguing late into the night about the Bill of Rights” and matching up “a contemporary social reality to the philosophical underpinnings of our republic.”
It’s no surprise Nelson disdains an “objective review of the facts” regarding Miers’ nomination, as he’s already reached his own decision.

Going for the jugular, Nelson impugns Miers’ character for choosing corporate law over public interest law or an academic career. He concludes that Miers “has shown no interest in or capacity to do the work for which she has been nominated.” Giants of American jurisprudence from John Marshall to Earl Warren had no judicial experience prior to joining the Supreme Court. There was a time where practical knowledge of the world, whether in politics or private practice, was considered far more important than “intellectual distinction” displayed in an academic career. Academics may disagree, but the core responsibility of judges is to make decisions, important decisions, often in less than ideal circumstances, often presented with strong arguments on both sides. The Supreme Court has precious few slam-dunk decisions, no matter what Justice Scalia may say.

The essential quality for a good judge is an ability to set aside preconceptions and remain wary of one's own bias so one may fairly weigh the opposing arguments that come before them. I don’t know whether Miers will be a great, or even good judge. I do know those who support or condemn her on the basis of the meager public record we now have before us clearly do so in ignorance and presume a great deal in so doing. Rather than shedding light on the Miers nomination, Nelson has simply made clear why we’ve never had a columnist nominated to the Supreme Court.

Agway and Affordability - Open Letter to SB/PC

2005-10-13T13:52:00.000-04:00

To the Planning Commission and Selectboard:

First and foremost, I'd like to express my appreciation for Creigh Moffatt's efforts to bring a concrete proposal before the Town. Creigh has shared her thoughts on this effort with me for some time and never once faltered when faced with my jaded outlook. Her energy and tenacity in pursuing this opportunity show once more than individuals can make a real difference in a community such as ours.

The debate regarding development of the Agway Property has included a number of broad assertions which, I am concerned, may obscure more practical difficulties. As I understand the issue, the Planning Commission is considering two options to secure the density boost necessary to accommodate the proposed housing project.

The first, an extension of the Village Residential District down Church Street/Route 5 North, would allow a Planned Residential Development ("PRD") under Section 12 of the Norwich Zoning Regulations based on the 1/2 acre minimum lot size permitted within the Village Residential District.

The second proposal would amend Section 12 to increase the "density bonus" granted for projects designating a certain proportion of units as "affordable housing," allowing the Agway property to remain in the Rural Residential District, but securing sufficient density to allow this project nonetheless.

The limited documentation I have seen suggests either option would be able to accommodate the level of density the developers feel necessary to make such a project economically viable. Nonetheless, I have practical and philosophical concerns regarding both options which I have not heard expressed thus far.

Whether one is talking about this project, "affordable housing" as a concept, or the affordability of housing in Norwich, one is ultimately talking about regulations and the policy goals they serve. Our zoning and subdivision regulations attempt to shape development in town by limiting the types of uses and density to designated districts. PRD's, as authorized in our zoning and subdivision regulations, do not alter the district-based density restrictions, but rather seek to govern large developments on a site-specific basis to maintain or mimic existing patterns of development consistent with the characteristics of the relevant zoning district.

In other words, our regulations ask a basic question which must be answered at the permitting stage for this project to go forward: "Is this where the town's regulations and Town Plan want this level of density to occur?"

Anyone who has carefully read our regulations will realize there is reason for caution. Our subdivision regulations are complex and highly restrictive of development on a number of surprisingly defined criteria. In addition, our PRD regulations specifically ask the DRB to assess applications against the stated goals of our Town Plan -- goals which, as in this instance, may be contradictory. In the end, I expect political pressure will force the issue, any contrary provisions of our regulations be damned. But the question is still worth asking and I haven't heard it asked.

Is this where the town's regulations and Town Plan want this level of density to occur? From a purely regulatory point of view, the answer is obviously "No." Village residential density belongs in the Village Residential District and efforts to extend that district are simply a reaction to an individual project. Neither our Town Plan nor our land use regulations contemplated village residential development in this area and we might pause to wonder why. Nor does it end there.

Are the developers in this instance aware of the site-specific restrictions they face under a PRD review? Our subdivision regulations establish mandatory requirements regarding consistency with existing settlement patterns; village residential settlement patterns in this instance. Even if we extend the village residential district, are the developers contemplating a village residential development? One fudge may require several more and expediency may usher in a series of unintended consequences.

Is this the direction we want to village to grow? Is this state highway corridor really the best place to extend a village settlement pattern and the streetscape such a pattern requires? This is currently an industrial site, after all, fronting a state highway and backed by a federal interstate highway, topographically isolated from the existing village. If we're willing to waive the existing regulations by amendment to allow this project to proceed to permitting review, are we also willing to waive the specific regulatory provisions which may make this project uneconomical to develop or simply untenable upon regulatory review? It may be worth considering specific amendments to those provisions as well so we can be sure the regulations achieve the right result.

To my eye, both the proposal to extend the village residential district and the idea of boosting the density bonus in the PRD regulations are broad regulatory changes prompted by a desire to accommodate a specific development proposal. That's not a great way to formulate regulations and begs the question what we thought we were doing in our strenuous efforts, as a town, to comprehensively update our Town Plan back in the early 1990's. If our regulations and Town Plan don't contemplate this level of density on this site, then where do they expect it to occur?

The simple answer is in the existing Village Residential District. If one follows the Simpson Development Corporation appeal, the answer is even more precise. Our regulations clearly expect greater than typical residential development to occur in the heart of the Village Residential District, rather than at its edges.

Coincidentally, even as the Agway property has come on the market, a substantial collection of properties at the heart of the village may also be available for development. There has been discussion that both the police and fire facilities need upgrading. Norwich Senior Housing has reached a regulatory threshold regarding it's initial HUD funding-based use restrictions. Today's paper suggests the brick house beside the Grange may also be available to the Town. Why not purchase the Agway property and relocate the Town's emergency services there? The existing fire and police facilities could then be redeveloped as residential housing placing more intensive residential density where our regulations suggest it belongs, nearer existing services and consistent with existing infrastructure. With a bit of ambition, Norwich Senior Housing might also be approached to expand the redevelopment area creating a new cluster which might incorporate the existing senior housing capacity within combined multi-unit and single-family housing.

If one assumes our regulations and Town Plan mean what they say, the question, then, is whether there is the political will to put our money where our regulatory mouth says this type of density should occur.

I also want to express my philosophical unease with the idea of siting an "affordable housing" project on the Agway property. I have worked in the affordable housing industry and seen first-hand the sullen bursts of opposition which occur when specific projects are presented, often coming from surprising constituencies. One of the real problems with "affordable housing" is the fact it often lacks the vested supporters found behind most for-profit development. As in Norwich, much of the support for affordable housing comes from policies, governmental agencies, and theoretical positions which prove malleable in the face of local opposition.

In the event, the path of least resistance often leads to physically segregated projects which concentrate "affordability" outside the existing fabric of the community. The eloquent letter from a Starlake resident in last week's Valley News speaks volumes to the overlooked infrastructure and transportation costs of distended development. There is also a social cost to segregation which we overlook at our peril. The proposed Agway development, while closer to the town's heart than Starlake, still lies a surprising distance away physically, topographically, and psychologically. For those who recommend the project on the basis of increasing the school population, I'd invite you to take your child or grandchild for a walk from Marion Cross to the Agway site one of these evenings. Ask them what they thought of the walk and whether they want to do it again tomorrow.

The alternative to concentrated, segregated "affordable housing" is integrated and dispersed "affordable housing." Unfortunately, these efforts don't achieve as much as quickly as a single big project, but they are more consistent with the way our town works and offer much better opportunities to foster diversity and community. A decision to purchase the Agway property for emergency services and redevelop the existing fire and police property would not sustain the number of units contemplated by the current proposal. The redevelopment option would have a better chance of achieving financial independence if some of the units were market-priced, reducing the total number of new affordable units still further. However, it's really a trade off between goals.

Are we looking to maximize affordable units in the short term or to maintain an economically diverse but integrated community in the long-term? The only reason to prefer the former, in my view, would be if one has no faith the latter will ever get done. I'd like to think it can be achieved and would suggest a few practical steps to get there.

First, add the idea of moving emergency facilities to the Agway parcel and redeveloping the fire/police property as integrated mixed-income housing as a third option in your discussions.

Second, the single best long-term vehicle to promote integrated, dispersed affordability is to promote rental housing in primary and secondary structures on existing properties within both the village and rural districts. A joint study subcommittee charged with reviewing what larger Vermont municipalities allow might be able to formulate specific regulatory language to encourage more rental housing within the existing housing inventory.

Third, address the apparent bar to multi-unit housing in the village district created in the last revision of the subdivision regulations.

Fourth, investigate the possibility of the Town entering an option agreement to acquire the Agway property either way to alleviate the time pressure tail which is waging this dog.

I think it would be a shame to waste Creigh's good work in this instance by failing to act, but I'd encourage the Town to act responsibly with regard to regulatory amendment and consider whether Creigh's efforts might be leveraged to set Norwich towards a more realistic and sustainable approach to housing affordability over the long-term.

Open Letter to SB re: Land Use Governance

2005-09-02T16:31:00.000-04:00

To The Norwich Selectboard:

Land use governance in the Town of Norwich is seriously broken. Why this is and how it has come to pass are matters for debate. Owing to the individuals involved, this debate is often acrimonious, yielding little constructive direction in recent years. For the sake of the Town, its land owners, board and commission volunteers, and professional staff, it is time to take firm and thoughtful measures to address these problems.

We need a qualified, neutral observer to evaluate our current land use governance structure, identify our difficulties, and offer alternatives to help us all move forward. The natural candidate to conduct this review would be our regional planning commission staff. I urge the Selectboard to initiate this review with all deliberate speed.

Open Letter to SB/PC/CC re: Big Picture Land Use Governance

2005-05-06T16:25:00.000-04:00

Selectboard, Town Manager and PC/CC Chairs:

As you know, the Vermont Legislature recently enacted far-reaching changes to the laws governing municipal planning and permitting. On the permitting side, the amended Title 24, Chapter 117
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/sections.cfm?Title=24&Chapter=117
makes specific changes procedural rights which our Zoning Administrator is monitoring to ensure we remain in compliance. My purpose in writing this email concerns the planning side of the new Chapter 117. I am forwarding it now in anticipation of your joint meeting with the Planning Commission on May 11th. I regret that I will be out-of-town on the 11th, but hope this email might suffice in my absence.

The new Chapter 117 outlines a structure which places the Planning Commission -- together with the Selectboard as ex officio non-voting members -- at the top of a number of "advisory committees and commissions".

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=24&Chapter=117&Section=04433

The new law gives these advisory bodies a specific role in the pre-application process so the advisory bodies have an opportunity for constructive input at both the pre-app and permit stages. In addition, Chapter 117 clearly envisions a more tiered structure on the planning side, utilizing any number of limited-term and permanent advisory committees to do the detail work on aspects of the Planning Commission's overall responsibilities which need more attention, including capital budgeting, town plan, and by-law revisions.

As I've thought this over and examined the law, I am inclined to believe the new changes seek to shift the Planning Commission's proper role towards oversight of it's advisory committees and coordination of their efforts, rather than attempting to do so much at the PC level. I think a change in roles along these lines offers some real benefits to the town.

First, new PC members wouldn't face such a learning curve since most of the detail work is actually occurring below the PC level. Continuity of efforts wouldn't be disrupted by political turmoil at the PC level because the advisory committees wouldn't necessarily be affected. The overall process would be more inclusive and more participant-friendly because the narrower focus of each advisory committee gives residents more opportunity to focus on their interests and make a difference without having to slog through a lot of unrelated matters to get there. Finally, the division of labor among a variety of smaller groups can bring real expertise to issues, develop more detailed responses, and lead to quicker action because efforts are more focused.

The Planning Commission would authorize and receive advisory committee reports, coordinate results, and keep advisory committees accountable to their stated agendas, but would remain focused on the overall agenda; e.g., a capital budgeting cycle, implementation of approved policies into reg revisions, and a rotating review and readoption of town plan chapters.

I think it's time to begin discussing this idea within the broader context of the Chapter 117 changes which have become effective or will before September 2005. Consequently, I'd like to suggest the Selectboard authorize a Land Use Governance Committee drawing members from the SB, PC, DRB, Conservation Commission, and a couple at-large members to:

1) review and summarize the current structure of land use in town, including the various committees and commissions appointed and convened over the years;

2) review the recent changes to Chapter 117 and consider restructuring existing town committees consistent with its dictates that may better coordinate planning and permitting efforts and clarify lines of authority;

3) consider whether Norwich should elect Planning Commission members (perhaps reducing the overall number of members as well) rather than rely upon Selectboard appointment, redirecting political controversy regarding PC membership to the people rather than to the appointment process;

4) make recommendations for changes and the staffing necessary to implement these changes, along with a general statement of policy summarizing how the restructured PC and advisory committees should operate.

I would recommend that, should such a committee be created, the regional planning commission and ZA should remain responsible for coordinating the implementation of the new requirements under Chapter 117 as they affect the permitting process itself since these rules have significant implications for appeals and legal rights of participants. As always, I'm happy to discuss this further.

Free Passage (Valley News Op-Ed)

2005-01-21T19:23:00.000-05:00

To The Editor:

I urge your readers to contact their US Senators and Representatives and express their opposition to the proposed permanent immigration checkpoint facility on I-91 before it's too late. This project typifies Washington's one-size-fits-all approach to a national problem which is completely out of character with the local communities which must live with the results. It's the wrong project, in the wrong place, sending the wrong message and it needs to be stopped.

It's the wrong project because it creates a fixed facility to pursue a mobile target. Even assuming these checkpoints are an effective immigration law enforcement tool, why create an obvious and fixed barrier in one location when the options to avoid it are so easy?

It's in the wrong location because it ignores the rural character of the setting and makes no effort to fit in with existing community facilities. Based on Valley News coverage, the primary purpose of the permanent facility would be to support checkpoint personnel and their immigration screening activities. Why not locate these support facilities and personnel in an existing community and operate mobile checkpoints from that base? Downtown White River Junction could easily accommodate such a base within minutes of mobile checkpoints on Interstates 89 and 91 as well as state highways which otherwise bypass the proposed facility. Why dump millions of dollars in taxpayer money creating an edifice in a rural setting when it could be put to good use investing in an existing downtown, generating additional foot traffic, lunch business, and retail activity in the process.

Finally, the proposed permanent checkpoint sends a terrible message with long-term implications. I'm proud to live in a region where routine searches by governmental authorities rankle people. I don't want my children growing up accustomed to routine traffic stops and the overt, ominous presence of governmental authority such a facility would establish. I recognize the federal government's authority to police our borders and I think it's obvious we've made enemies abroad who will injure us given the opportunity. Nevertheless, a permanent facility permanently alters our expectations of what it means to be free citizens allowed to travel freely within our borders. We should not allow the trip between Springfield and Hartford to become, in effect, an international border crossing with the heightened authority to search and detain citizens such crossings entail.

Remember the freedoms Al Qaeda has already taken from us. I, for one, refuse to accept that they're gone forever. They will be, however, if we simply acquiesce to federal expediency and fail to ask what it will cost us. It's the wrong project, in the wrong place, telling us every time we pass through that we've lost a portion of our birthright forever. Stop it.

The Myth of Faction

2004-06-15T18:05:00.000-04:00

It appears Norwich has reached that unhappy state where politics trumps good governance.

Some observers point to bloc voting in recent years as evidence of meaningful differences between two ideologically distinct factions. I simply don't see it.

Instead, I see two loose confederations of individuals, each united primarily in reaction to a perceived transgression by the other. Arguments as to how this all started -- who cast the first stone -- simply highlight the fact both sides feel abundantly provoked. An accumulation of slights have bred a series of personal animosities which now often cloud rational, thoughtful decision-making.

In my view, it is an open question whether the current Selectboard membership and their respective supporters can find a practical path away from the personality-driven politics of the present. Certainly, the path begins with a determination to place the good of the town ahead of the expediency of faction. This requires the discipline of tolerance to take seriously the concerns of those we dislike as legitimate concerns however illegitimately we may feel they have been expressed. It requires the humility to recognize our own proviniciality and seek to understand the views of our opponents for how they might illuminate our own blind spots. And it requires the practical sense to recognize today's slim majority does not further it's own interests by running roughshod over yesterday's slim majority. Finally, it requires the leadership to listen patiently to all sides and treat them all fairly as a good in itself.

The people of Norwich deserve the government we demand. Maybe it's time to ask for more?

Norwich Woes - (Valley News Op-Ed)

2004-06-01T04:09:00.000-04:00

To The Editor:

Alex Hanson's May 27th article ("Norwich Couple's Complaint Brings Deeper Discord To Surface") asserts that "Norwich is sharply divided over issues of growth and development. For the last several years, that division has become increasingly personal." Mr. Hanson's attempt to place the town's factional nonsense within some kind of substantive context is understandable but doesn't bear scrutiny.

Town government in Norwich is indeed "sharply divided," but growth and development issues are simply the flavors of the month. Seven years ago, the divisions flared up over litigation with certain tax-exempt entities in town; five years ago it was Selectboard meeting times; three years ago it was police staffing and class four roads; this year it is the Planning Commission. The only consistent thread through these and myriad other recent conflicts in town has been the cast of characters arrayed on either side.

I have friends and acquaintances in both camps and I have yet to see any meaningful policy differences between the two. All I see are two camps, steeped in the politics of outrage; no longer able to recognize the provocations of their own conduct because they are so intent upon exposing the machinations of their opponents. It's all personal and putative policy differences are simply vehicles to whip up the troops for the next election. The important question Norwich residents should be asking themselves is: Where will it end?

On the one hand, Norwich voters have shown an increasing willingness to vote out incumbents from both factions. Perhaps the outrage is turning upon itself and will eventually consume its promoters. On the other hand, the political circus leaves little room for the soft-spoken. I hate to think the current volume and vitriol of town politics might become business as usual in Norwich. I hate to think a community such as ours would settle for government by the loudest especially when, if you dig beneath the demagoguery, there's so little to shout about.

Development Review Board Interview - Norwich Happenings

2003-06-08T14:03:00.000-04:00

Last November, the Selectboard created a town committee to examine Development Review Boards and to recommend whether the town should adopt one or keep the existing Planning Commission/Zoning Board of Adjustment arrangement. Watt Alexander chaired the committee, which recommended creating a DRB. Copies of the committee's report are available at the Norwich Public Library.

Three Questions for Watt Alexander:

1) What is a Development Review Board?

First, I should explain that there are really two aspects to land use regulation at the town level: planning and permitting. Planning, which means identifying parameters for future development and drafting regulations to enforce those parameters, has been the job of the Planning Commission. Permitting, or the review of individual land development permit applications under the town's land-use regulations, has been shared among the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Adjustment.

In 1996, the Vermont Legislature created an alternative to the traditional arrangement, in an effort to improve both municipal planning and permitting. The Legislature authorized towns to create "development review boards" (DRB's). Where adopted, a DRB replaces the existing Zoning Board of Adjustment, and assumes the permitting duties of the Planning Commission. As a result, there is a clear separation of authority: The Planning Commission does planning, the DRB does permitting. This division of duties is intended to free up time for planning commissions to do more planning. Moreover, by consolidating permitting under a DRB, it should foster greater permitting expertise and more uniform permit hearing procedures.

2) What was wrong with the old system?

Many Vermont towns, including Norwich, have struggled with the traditional allocation of permitting duties. In many instances, planning commissions find their permitting responsibilities interfere with their ability to focus on planning. Under these circumstances, both planning and permitting suffer as volunteer planning commission members are stretched beyond reason.

Our committee concluded that, while Norwich land use regulation has not reached the crisis level found in a number of other Vermont towns, adopting a DRB at this time makes sense for a number of reasons. In Norwich, the Planning Commission has borne the brunt of permitting activity, leaving the Zoning Board of Adjustment with little to do and the Planning Commission pressed for time. This situation has grown more lopsided with recent changes to the town's zoning and subdivision regulations. The committee felt that, consistent with the experience of many other Vermont towns, adopting a DRB in Norwich would free our Planning Commission to focus on its considerable planning responsibilities. It would also create an opportunity to comprehensively review our permitting procedures and make improvements where we think they will lead to a more consistent, accessible permitting process.

3) Where do we go from here?

The committee's report and unanimous recommendations were submitted to the Selectboard in February along with a recommended time line for shifting to a DRB. The Selectboard adopted our recommendations, and has convened two subcommittees to study implementation issues. The goal is to launch the DRB in early September. Interviews for prospective DRB members will occur this summer, and new member training will commence in late summer.

While the change to a DRB sounds highly bureaucratic, the core purpose of the change is democratic. Here in Vermont, we are blessed with a landscape which has not yet been wholly subdued by human activity. Vermont’s land use laws have played an important role in preserving this rural character. They’ve succeeded because they also preserve the democratic traditions of small town Vermont. Here, municipal planning is designed to be a participatory process driven by volunteers who will reflect the values and interests of the community. Through a combination of carrots and sticks, Vermont law prods municipalities to develop and regularly update their town plans and land use regulations. In this way, Vermont law both authorizes and actively encourages municipalities to take control of their destinies and use the planning process to shape development to reflect the values and ambitions of their residents. The laws are designed both to protect the rights of individual land owners and to reconcile those rights with the interests of the broader community. It’s only natural that these interests will sometimes conflict. Active, civil participation in the town's various planning efforts is the best means for working out many of these conflicts. And where individual development projects are concerned, fair and consistent permitting is the best alternative.

I think the shift to a DRB is a step in the right direction. I think it creates a tremendous opportunity to revitalize broad participation in planning future development for our town. If adopting a DRB increases citizen participation in planning Norwich’s future, I think we will have achieved something important. But, being a democratic process, it all really comes down to the tone and quality of that participation. There is only so much that can be done to open the doors. It’s up to all of us, as Norwich residents, to take an active role and refuse to be deterred by the sometimes strident and antagonistic manner political conflicts are sometimes pursued.

Open Letter to PC/SB re: Draft Subdivision Regs

2002-03-15T15:59:00.000-05:00

I'll be out-of-town for your hearing on the 20th, but wanted to pass along my thoughts, for what they're worth.

First, it's clear a great deal of work and care went into these proposed regs, for which the Planning Commission deserve our congratulations and our thanks.

I believe I understand the intent of Section 3.2, concerning determination of allowable density, and feel these efforts are well-conceived though ultimately quite limited. Similarly, the subsequent sections of Article 3, all identifying specific non-density concerns regarding existing natural, cultural, and infrastructure assets seems to me, again, well-conceived, but limited.

For example, Section 3.7(F), concerning "Traffic and Road Capacity," states that a proposed subdivision "shall not result in unreasonable traffic congestion or exceed the capacity of roads and intersections IN THE VICINITY OF THE SUBDIVISION." (My emphasis) Apart from the eminently disputable standard for "unreasonable traffic congestion," this aspect of the proposed regs leaves the community powerless to regulate the cumulative effect of traffic from further rural subdivisions on the center of town and the intermediate access roads.

The "density adjustments" provided under Table 3.2, appear to be an attempt to address some of these concerns by increasing minimum lots according to road access and travel distances to Tracy Hall. Again, these seem to me to be decent general minimum standards which are certainly better than what we currently have. Nevertheless, they do not specifically address the particular circumstances we find in Norwich where the center of town bears the brunt of traffic for five feeder roads along which most future subdivisions will occur.

Furthermore, while the road class adjustments are likely intended to remain flexible, I can foresee circumstances under which they might prove far less restrictive than we now imagine. For instance, as more houses are built on New Boston Road, I can imagine more distant stretches of road being upgraded , as we have seen along Beaver Meadow Road in the past ten years. Under Table 3.2, such upgrades create, in effect, a density multiplier for lots accessing that road, doubling, quadrupling, possibly even sextupling the density of all lots along the improved stretch.

For this reason, I would ask the Planning Commission and Selectboard to consider altering the Density Adjustment in Table 3.2 (B) from a series of staggered mile intervals, to a continuum formula in which the Density Adjustment is a strict function of travel distance. Thus, a lot which would qualify as being 5.4 miles from Tracy Hall would have a Density Adjustment multiplier of 5.4, rather than 2.5 under the current proposed formula. This change would simply mitigate the potential multiplier due to subsequent road upgrades according to distance traveled. While the proposed change would be more restrictive on attenuated development that the current proposed formula, it is consistent with the increased multiple as a function of distance traveled and it is less arbitrary in that there is an actual objective basis for the multiple which is consistently applied along the entire distance of any road. I hope you'll consider this change.

Returning, then, to my primary concern regarding cumulative automobile traffic incidental to further rural residential development, I would urge the Planning Commission and Selectboard to follow-up on these regs with a set of regs governing specific roads. These subsequent regs should draw more broadly upon the stated goals of the Town Plan and take note of specific characteristics unique to each road. I believe the cumulative automobile traffic incidental to rural residential development continues to degrade quality of life and safety for those within the village district. This increased traffic also discourages non-motorized transportation along the feeder roads, necessarily adding to the volume of motorized traffic. I would hope the subsequent regs might approach rural development in terms analogous to those used in watershed studies, addressing each major feeder road as a "trafficshed" and regulating further "upstream" development according to the way they affect quality of life and safety in areas "downstream." We cannot account for "downstream" traffic impacts and the congestion caused by attenuated residential development without directly addressing them. I don't think the density formulae provided in the proposed subdivision regs account for these impacts.

I don't suggest "trafficshed" regulation lightly. On the contrary, I think it's absolutely necessary if we are to implement many of the objectives and policies adopted in our Town Plan. Indeed, while I appreciate the time and effort put into the proposed subdivision regs, they simply highlight how much is left to do regarding implementing the numerous objectives articulated in the Town Plan. I think the proposed regs are an important first step in creating a minimum floor for further subdivision permitting, but would be deeply disappointed if it were to be the only step.

Dresden Bonds and Act 60 (Valley News Op-Ed)

2001-12-13T12:50:00.000-05:00

To the Editor:

Harland Hoisington's recent Letter to the Editor ("Norwich's Problem Isn't Act 60" - November 28, 2001) provided much-needed perspective regarding the modest property tax reform achieved under Act 60. I admire Mr. Hoisington's long-standing advocacy for such reform and his vigorous defense of Act 60 against its many opponents.

Thus, I was particularly distressed to read Mr. Hoisington's final paragraph, concerning the looming Dresden bond vote, which warns "Hanover taxpayers . . . may jam a $42 million building program down the throats of Norwich taxpayers," and, later, "most Hanover voters imperiously announce that they are ‘not about to subsidize Norwich’." I find such statements as short-sighted as the attacks on Act 60 which Mr. Hoisington himself decries. Unfortunately, these and similar statements are becoming increasingly common within Dresden. They should not go unchallenged.

Norwich’s “problem” isn’t Act 60 or Hanover, our partner in the Dresden Compact. Norwich’s problem is far more simple: Our middle and high schools are overcrowded and physically decaying. Overcrowding and decay will not improve by themselves and the cost of either renovating or relocating one or both of these schools will be very, very high. This problem is simple, unavoidable, and getting worse. It's the solution, and how to pay for it, that becomes complex.

There is no question Act 60 and the Dresden Compact complicate how Norwich will pay for its portion of any improvements to the Dresden schools. Due to our higher than average per pupil spending, Norwich has become a "donor" town under Act 60. Due to our lower property grand list and a proportionately higher number of students attending Dresden schools, proportionately, Norwich must raise more tax revenue on a lower tax base than Hanover. Norwich is, I believe, in a unique predicament: Required to share property tax revenues under Act 60; pressed to raise more with less under the Dresden Compact; and inextricably bound to both.

Yes, for all practical purposes, Norwich is inextricably bound to both Act 60 and the Dresden Compact. Once we acknowledge this fact, the persistent grumbling that Act 60 should be repealed, muttered threats to dissolve the Dresden Compact, and cross-river finger-pointing accusing others of being “the problem,” are revealed as but empty words which only succeed in inflaming passions, making any practical solution that much more difficult to achieve.

Consider Act 60. This law was enacted in direct response to the 1997 Brigham decision which declared Vermont’s then-existing school financing scheme unconstitutional. The Brigham decision was not a bolt out of the blue, but rather the weary culmination of years of legislative paralysis in which successive attempts to achieve property tax reform were smothered in Montpelier. The Vermont Legislature admitted as much, when legislators rose to their feet, giving Amanda Brigham’s attorney a standing ovation as he addressed their chamber following the ruling. There’s no question aspects of Act 60 remain highly controversial. Nevertheless, none of the major political parties in Vermont have yet come forward with a viable alternative to the deeply unpopular Act 60 “sharing” pool which can both provide an equal level of property tax relief and pass constitutional muster under Brigham. Under any viable alternative, the tax revenue currently distributed through the Act 60 “sharing pool” to provide property tax relief for “receiving” towns would have to come from somewhere. Norwich, one of the wealthiest towns in Vermont, will continue to be on the giving end of any such redistribution, whether it’s called a “sharing pool” or something else.

As for the Dresden Compact, while dissolution may appear within our power, as a practical matter, dissolving Dresden would be disastrous for both member towns. It should be recalled that the Dresden Compact was created in 1963 to address the same problem we currently face. Prior to 1963, Norwich students “tuitioned-in” to the upper grades of the Hanover School District. As both towns grew, the middle and high schools became overcrowded, requiring improvements to the physical plant. The Dresden Compact offered the opportunity to pool the resources of both towns and create a larger school, with a wider variety of educational opportunities, than either Hanover or Norwich could afford on their own. The Compact also allowed Norwich to directly participate in middle and high school governance for the first time.
Measured against its original goals, it’s clear the Dresden Compact has been a tremendous success.

Indeed, in many respects, Dresden’s success has exceeded all expectations. Since the Compact was created, both Hanover and Norwich have witnessed a large influx of families drawn to the Dresden schools. Property values in both towns reflect this continuing demand. These families are largely self-selecting, placing a premium on academic achievement and investing in their homes in the expectation that a healthy Dresden school system will justify the investment.

Any serious discussion of dissolving the Dresden Compact must account for both the direct and indirect costs involved with replacing what we now have. I challenge anyone to present a detailed explanation of how our two towns could unwind the Compact and replicate, on our own, what we currently have as partners in the Dresden Compact, at anything near the current cost and current property values. I am convinced the cost to both towns in terms of diminished programs, destabilized property values, increased taxes to support redundant infrastructure, and loss of common purpose between our two towns would be obscene. Casual threats to proceed down this path which do not acknowledge these costs are simply irresponsible.

Mr. Hoisington’s letter itself makes no mention of dissolving the Dresden Compact, only that he fears Hanover’s greater size when it comes time for a bond vote and suspects Hanover voters may be insensitive to Norwich’s predicament. The intemperance with which he expressed these fears is surprisingly inconsistent with the many other thoughtful expositions on property tax reform which Mr. Hoisington has shared in the past. While it is clear these fears are deeply felt, I believe they are largely unfounded.

Are Hanover voters poised “to jam” the proposed bond “down the throats of Norwich taxpayers”? Are “most” Hanover voters “imperiously” insensitive to Norwich’s tax burden?

For Hanover residents (and many Norwich residents who work in or simply enjoy downtown Hanover) the site options under consideration are not merely a matter of taxes, but also concern the future character of Hanover’s civic center. Would Norwich residents view a proposal to sell the Marion Cross School and Green to Dartmouth as merely a matter of money?

Moreover, while in broad terms Hanover may be considered affluent, many individual Hanover households will also find the increased tax burden of the proposed bond difficult to bear. Nor has the dust yet settled on New Hampshire’s own school finance reform program as the litigants in the Claremont saga prepare to relitigate the current fragile legislative compromise. Hanover is also a “donor” town and the eventual price tag of the new school finance scheme remains unclear.

This is simply no time for finger-pointing. Together, Norwich and Hanover have created and maintained a bigger, more diverse, school system that either could have achieved on our own. Together, we’ve allowed our shared schools to become overcrowded and outdated. And together, we need to find a way to address these physical limitations within the complex financial, social, and political constraints upon each town. This will involve some very tough decisions. Hanover and Norwich face significant -- and significantly different --challenges which will require our collective patience, understanding, and perhaps a few failed bond votes before we reach a workable solution. But Hanover and Norwich are in this together, for good reasons, as valid now as they were nearly forty years ago. As in 1963, it is the physical state of our schools that is the problem and the Dresden Compact remains the best answer.

Letter to Planning Commission re: Open Meetings

2001-10-02T16:04:00.000-04:00

I've followed, with interest, the recent "open meetings" dispute regarding your site visit to Maple Leaf Partners' properties on their subdivision application. I have no agenda regarding that application or the lawsuit which preceded it. I do want to express my hope that, in the future, the PC will, as a matter of policy, refuse to conduct a site visit where an applicant seeks to deprive access to certain members of the public in attendance.

The subdivision application and evidentiary support for that application are matters of public record and we have a strong tradition, supported by statute, of permitting the public access to these aspects of the application process. I hope the Planning Commission will dispense with any further consideration of the specific statute in question and simply adopt this policy, as it reflects the values of public access and accountability without, in any substantive way, infringing upon an applicant's rights or expectation of privacy. It's a shame you've been put in this position and I see little purpose in dwelling upon it. The solution seems to me to be a statement of policy upholding the importance of public access and a new site visit.

Slow Down on Town Manager (Valley News Op-Ed)

2001-02-16T15:38:00.000-05:00

To The Editor:

I am writing to urge Norwich residents to vote against Article 16 -- authorizing the creation of a town manager for the Town of Norwich -- on March 6th. The decision to adopt a town manager form of government is a very big step for a small town which should not be taken lightly. Article 16, well-intentioned as it may be, simply has not and cannot receive the careful consideration it deserves before we must vote on it.

This Article was placed on the Town Warning by petition in early January. The fact that such a momentous decision has arisen by petition, rather than through a deliberate and considered debate within the Selectboard should concern us. As a practical matter, placing this particular Article by petition has limited our opportunity to adquately consider its meaning through the time-tested traditions of public debate which have served this town very well throughout its long history.

We are being asked to consider a fundamental change in our form of town government; however, our current Selectboard has not yet had the opportunity to weigh the costs and benefits of such a change, identify its own administrative needs based on its own experience, or even take an official position as a board on the merits of the proposal. Further discussion, drawing upon the collective experience of the many generous and thoughtful volunteers who have kept this town running through the years, is absolutely essential before we decide to fetter ourselves with a statutory town manager. A vote against Article 16 will allow us time to pursue this debate and seek an informed consensus regarding our town's administrative and governmental
needs.

I appreciate the concerns of the author and proponents of this petition and recognize they were motivated by the best of intentions. They deserve credit for having raised the issue. Without their efforts the town's administrative needs might have continued to fester unheeded. The petition's author, in particular, has worked hard to foster this debate and was instrumental in convening an excellent expert panel for the February 7th public forum on this Article. I applaud these efforts and hope they will serve as a good foundation for a broader and more considered debate on the issue in the coming months. Please vote "NO" on Article 16 on March 6th.

Time For Quiet (Valley News Op-Ed)

2000-11-01T00:14:00.000-05:00

As most readers of this paper are by now well aware, a struggle is currently underway regarding proposed alterations to a Class 4 road in Norwich. An abutting landowner contends that he has a right to clear trees and regrade this Class 4 road at his own expense to make it passable for vehicles. Some neighbors and others who hike this "road" oppose him, arguing that Class 4 roads are public assets meant to benefit the public. Thus, they argue, where the public interest is better served by keeping the road a hiking trail, an abutter's desire to alter it for vehicular use must give way. I see merits in both arguments and Vermont law govering Class 4 roads appears somewhat ambiguous on this issue. Not surprisingly, the matter is now before the courts and will likely result in a significant ruling further clarifying landowner rights and municipal authority in Vermont. A great deal can be said about the important legal principles at issue in this case, but I want to express my opinion regarding a more subtle, and more disturbing, aspect to this struggle.

Norwich town government, as in most Vermont towns, depends on the volunteer efforts of individuals and the collective civility of the entire population to work effectively. Norwich has been blessed with a rich history of individuals, from a variety of backgrounds, giving generously of their time to keep town government working. Unfortunately, like many blessings, this tradition of volunteer service seems often to be taken for granted. However generously offered, it is, nevertheless, a limited resource which the people of this town must respect and conserve if it is to continue.

The Bradley Hill Class 4 road/trail issue illustrates how easily the limited resources of small town government can be strained. The bi-weekly battles over this issue have significantly interfered with the Selectboard's agenda and delayed consideration of a large number of other important town issues. I see no useful purpose to these persistent attempts to force the Selectboard's hand in this matter. The legal principles at issue in the case are already before the courts. Both sides appear to possess the resources and determination to fully litigate these issues and supporters on each side have reason to be confident their positions will be well-represented. The Selectboard has convened an ad hoc committee to recommend a uniform policy regarding Class 4 roads. My point is simply that small towns such as Norwich depend on both the sacrifice of those who serve and the civility of those who seek town action. We all benefit from the individual courage of those who speak up, but we are best served when they also exhibit the good judgment to know when to shut up. Let's give the courts time to do their job, let the Town's ad hoc committee on Class 4 roads do its job, and let the Selectboard move on to the Town's other business.

Norwich Residents Deserve Better? (Valley News Op-Ed)

2000-03-07T21:19:00.000-05:00

To the Editor:

I was appalled by Norwich Selectboard candidate Douglas Hoffman's letter of February 29, 2000, entitled "Norwich Residents Deserve Better." The tone and substance of this letter alone should raise questions in voters' minds regarding Mr. Hoffman's candidacy. While I support his stated goals of more inclusive and transparent town government, I utterly reject the cynical political rhetoric of the letter itself.

At its core, Mr. Hoffman's letter raises an important question: Why does it require a citizen petition and Town-wide vote to "advise" the Selectboard to change their meeting time to a more convenient hour and to record individual members' votes? The answer to this question should tell us a great deal about our Selectboard. But rather than simply pose the question and demand a forthright answer, Mr. Hoffman's letter impugns the character and motives of the current Selectboard with innuendo and rhetorical device: Has the current Norwich Selectboard really "done everything it could to discourage active and informed citizen involvement?" Has it "invested itself in turning a deaf ear to the town and its concerns?" Do Selectboard members truly want to deny Norwich voters "the right to choose from a number of candidates for selectboard?"

Over the years Norwich has seen a number of vigorous debates regarding issues of town and school governance. Mr. Hoffman's letter suggests a nasty turn in the tenor of these debates. It is one thing to disagree with someone's views and vigorously argue the merits of that disagreement. It is quite another to deride one's opponents with suggestions of bad faith, wilful indifference to voters' concerns, and actively conspiring to prevent broader citizen participation. Worse, still, Mr. Hoffman couches these serious accusations in the rhetoric of innuendo. Mr. Hoffman doesn't personally accuse the Selectboard of doing "everything it could to discourage active and informed citizen involvement." He's only "listened to many Norwich residents" who feel that way. He's not forthrightly stating his own opinion that Selectboard members want to deny Norwich voters "the right to choose from a number of candidates for selectboard." He's only suggesting that might be their motive in the form of a rhetorical question.

Near it's end, Mr Hoffman's letter makes much of the need for Selectboard members who will take responsibility for their actions. He would do well to lead by example, cast off this cloak of innuendo, and tell his fellow townspeople simply and forthrightly how he would do things differently and why.