|
Interview with Tim Ashe
The following is a faithfully
transcribed conversation between me and mayoral candidate Tim Ashe
recorded at The Bagel Cafe and Deli in the Ethan Allen Shopping
Center on North Avenue on November 27, 2011 between 11am and 1pm.
Ashe is currently a state senator from Chittenden County and is
running for the Democratic nomination for mayor of Burlington.
HB: OK Tim Ashe, candidate for the
Democratic nomination for mayor- Thank you for joining me.
TA: Thank you for having me.
HB: Absolutely. So, I'm not going to
go easy on you. I'm going to ask you the hardest questions I can
think of. As candidates go, you're sort of a target-rich candidate
for hard questions...
TA: A pinata.
HB: Because you've been around a little
bit longer...
TA: I've got a record...
HB: You've got a record and you were on
the city council during a critical time and all of that, so...
TA: Yes.
HB: But let's start out by having you
please tell us a little bit about yourself. Where did you grow up?
And you came to Vermont to go to UVM, is that correct? And have you
ever aspired to do anything other than public service, or is that
what you've always dreamt of doing?
TA: Well I grew up in Holliston
Massachusetts... came to Vermont in 1995 to attend UVM. In terms of
whether I aspired to something other than public service, you know
I've had a job while I've served in the senate and while I've served
on the city council, while I'm going through this race. I work for
Cathedral Square.
HB: Right, but there's sort of a public
service element to that, isn't there?
TA: Yeah, but I mean it's an actual
private sector position, which required me to go to work in the
morning, earn a paycheck to pay my bills.
HB: Yeah...
TA: But it is- I feel very good about
it. It's one of those jobs where you're able to do well by doing
good, and I feel very grateful for that.
HB: I've noticed that you've been
touting that as private-sector experience. Do you think there's a
connotation to the phrase “private sector” that a lot of
people take to mean as “for profit?”
TA: I think it would be incorrect. I
mean there's public and private sectors and the non-profit in many
cases is like the private sector. It's not a social service agency.
What I do at work is I work with communities to determine what the
needs are for seniors and then we go out and find private and public
monies and we create new affordable housing, and rent and manage that
out to seniors.
HB: Do you get federal funds?
TA: Federal, State and private money.
There is no Hatch issue, if that's where you're headed...
HB: Errr...
TA: The Federal streams of money that
lead to the Hatch Act are CDBG and CSBG- the Community Services Block
Grant, and we had that investigated before I ever took a job at
Cathedral Square, and my salary is not funded by either of those
sources, so... Trust me. It's something I've looked into.
HB: Your parents still live in
Massachusetts?
TA: Yup.
HB: Did you go there for Thanksgiving?
TA: I did go there for Thanksgiving for
the first time in three years, so it was good to go.
HB: That's good. Now let's get into
the harder questions. On June 13th The Burlington Free Press
reported that the airport owes 7.5 million to the cash pool because
it didn't get bonds to fund its parking garage expansion. It also
reported that the chair of the commission said “Jonathan blew
it,” talking about Jonathan Leopoold and that Jonathan fired
back saying “The Board of Finance and the City Council relied
on airport management and the commission.” First of all- how
long has Miro been on the Airport commission, to your knowledge?
TA: You'd have to ask him, but I
believe for... he's the longest serving airport commissioner...
HB: So he was there in 2008?
TA: Yes... as far as I know. I mean
you'd have to check... but I'm 99% sure.
HB: Did the CAO blow it, like the
airport commissioner said, or did airport commission blow it? Or
management? Or did the board of finance blow it? Or did the voters
blow it by not approving a bond in 2009? What's your take on the
situation with the airport financing 'debacle' if you want to call it
that?
TA: Well I think the first and most
obvious thing it highlights is the complete breakdown in
communication between airport leadership, which includes the
commission, and this administration in city hall. That they're not
on the same page on a very large construction project, to me is a
real problem. I'm a little confused when I hear the commission,
after the garage has been built, raise this as a major red flag
against the administration- because the garage was being built and my
assumption was that people were saying 'what's the source of funds
for this?' Who communicated what in the meantime? I wasn't there
so I don't know the answer to that.
HB: But you were on the board of
finance...
TA: No.
HB: You weren't on the board of finance
in 2008?
TA: In 2008... You're asking multiple
questions here, because the quote you're having from the Free Press
and all, is from June of 2011.
HB: Right, but they're talking about a
period of time...
TA: The airport garage was not being
built while I was on the city council.
HB: It wasn't?
TA: No. I was off the council, end of
March 2009.
HB: Right, but it wasn't being built in
2008?
TA: I don't believe it had started
construction at that point. My memory isn't always the greatest,
but... I looked at board of finance minutes from when I was there,
and there were conversations about engineering studies, and
permitting, and for giving authorization for the airport to move
forward with those types of things, the sort of soft-cost...
HB: And then how was that going to be
financed?
TA: What's that?
HB: How was that...
TA: That was internal fund from the
airport which was never in contention, and some of it, I'm thinking
may have been federal dollars- but don't hold me to that... The point
is, when I was on the board of finance we had been presented with was
the engineering, architectural design moving forward- but not the
actual construction at that point.
HB: Should there have been a bond in
place before the parking garage expansion started happening?
TA: I think a financing plan should
have been in place. Yes.
HB: But it wasn't.
TA: It was not.
HB: And whose fault was that? The
airport commissions fault, or Jonathan Leopold's fault, or...?
TA: I would say that it seems to me to
be a case of city hall and the airport leadership failing to have a
financial plan in place. Why it's the fault of one and not the
other? It's a system breakdown.
HB: It's a system breakdown. Ok....
[long pause]
TA: You're looking confused. What have
I said that's confusing you?
HB: According to the Free Press there
was a bond that was narrowly defeated in March of '09 to pay for the
airport construction.
TA: Yes. And that was the same
election where I was replaced by another city councilor.
HB: You must have voted to put that
bond on the ballot.
TA: Yeah. The council, as you know,
approves questions on the ballot... and that failed... It got a
majority, but not the sufficient...
HB: It failed but the construction went
forward anyway.
TA: Yes.
HB: So who is ultimately responsible
for that? Again it's a system breakdown?
TA: Airport leadership and the
administration made a decision to proceed without permanent financing
in place. If airport leadership were unhappy with proceeding without
permanent financing in place,
they should have said “we should
not proceed without permanent financing.”
HB: Right and they didn't do that, to
your knowledge...
TA: The administration can't solely
place it all on the airport leadership because it was they who went
out and drew from the cash pool. So to me there were opportunities
on both sides, to halt the project before proceeding. I wasn't
hearing it at the time. I mean this was, again, after I left the
council...
HB: So do you think it's somewhat
disingenuous of Miro Weinberger to point to that now, after the fact?
TA: Well I think for everyone involved
to be pointing fingers in the other direction after the fact seems
unfair, because, to the extent we'll call it 'sides,' both sides were
part of the build out of the garage. And if we did not want to draw
from the cash pool, then someone should have spoken up either before
construction started... commencement of construction, and said 'wait,
wait wait... why are taking this risk?'
HB: Moody's downgraded the airport's
credit rating because it participates in the city's cash pool, and
the city's cash pool has a deficit...
TA: Yes.
HB: ...because of the Burlington
Telecom, uh, loan. Do you support the airport divesting itself from
the city's main cash pool and keeping its finances separate? Should
the airport have its own separate cash pool to keep the books
clearer?
TA: I would want to speak to a CAO, and
people from Moody's frankly, to better understand the extent to which
that factored into the downgrade of the airport's credit rating,
before making a decision on that.
HB: That is from the same Free Press
article from June 13th.
TA: I have no doubt that it indicated
that was a contributing factor. Was it a significant factor? Was it
a mere afterthought factor? I wouldn't want to make a dramatic
policy statement without consulting others, frankly.
HB: Fair enough. On November 2, the
FAA sent a letter to the mayor saying that it was investigating
possible improper payments from the airport to South Burlington and
possible over-payments to the Department of Public Works. Why would
the airport be paying too much to people when it's already owing the
cash pool 7.5 million and low on money?
TA: Well the payments to South
Burlington. Let's start there. And I'm trying to remember from that
letter, because when I read it- the payments to the airport were
related to the extra services and then there were the peripheral
storm-water and property tax payments, but I think this was focused
on the fees... the fee for service payments, and...
HB: I don't know specifically. I
didn't bring the letter.
TA: I'm pretty sure that that's the
case. Should they be overpaying for services to the city of South
Burlington? No. The fact is that there were for, it appears, for
five to seven years payments being made from somewhere between 100,
200 grand for services which no one can understand yet what those
services are. We've heard that it's been to help pay for police
services. Well of course we already pay property taxes to South
Burlington which should cover police services, and we ourselves in
Burlington also pay for police services...
HB: At the airport. We have Burlington
police at the airport, right...
TA: ...because our police and fire
staff them...So right now we're getting one for the price of three in
terms of police services. We're paying three times for the price of
one police officer to staff the airport. So I think absolutely that
should be looked at. Now Sandy Miller is suggesting that “well
yeah, we get this extra payment from you, but the storm-water charge
we assess you is lower than it should be, and so it all balances
out...” that's been his public statement, if you'll see his
explanation was in the Free Press and I believe the South Burlington
'Other Paper' but the thing is...
HB: Shouldn't they just charge the
right amount for the right things?
TA: They should charge the right about
for the right things. Exactly. In terms of a clear accounting so
people can understand what you're getting and for what. In terms of
the over-payments to DPW... it says 'possible' over-payments to DPW,
and this is an issue that dates back to the mid-80s where there were
earlier investigations of whether the relationship- because it used
to be private- I believe that the parking garage maintenance and
oversight used to be done by a private firm, and people were not
happy with what the city was getting and what airport customers were
getting for that. When it went to DPW, there is no question that it
creates a surplus and that has helped pay for school crossing guards
and some other city services.
HB: Do you think, by the way- just to
inject this- do you think school crossing guards should be a school
function? Should that be moved over to the school department the way
George Cross, in his report said it should be?
TA: Well I think for a more transparent
and comprehensible school budget, the answer is yes, but this
pre-dates me from my time on the city council. This is like early
2000s I think this payment mechanism first started going in for the
crossing guards. One of the problems was that the school department
was saying 'we've sort of reached our point where we can't ask for
more money' and this was a creative way of continuing to have school
crossing guards. So the answer to that question is yes, the best way
to move forward would be to have that paid through the school
department... the problem is...you're on the school board... and I
don't know that you want to go to the tax payer and say 'well it's
true- the airport's been paying for it, now we want you to pay for
it.'
HB: But we are going to have to go to
the taxpayer, while we're on this tangent...
TA: With the FICA issue. I
understand.
HB: We're going to lose a 411 thousand
dollar reimbursement from the city for FICA for non teacher employees
of the district that we used to get from the city. And in the future
what they're looking at is also having the school department
contribute the other retirement cost to the Burlington Employees
Retirement System which will be another...
TA: Big hit...
HB: ...possibly 800 thousand dollars or
so... Do you agree with George Cross that Act 68 basically mandates
that? Because he's saying that the city paying the retirement cost
is an indirect payment to the school department, in violation of Act
68.
TA: I won't weigh in on the legal
question, if it's in violation of the mandate... it's been public
knowledge that this has been the payment system...
HB: Right and it pre-dates Act 68...
TA: Even in my time on the city
council, this was raised as an issue, and I think at the time
Jonathan was suggesting it needed to get off the city books, and the
school department then- this is thinking back four or five years- was
saying 'we can't take a hit like this right now, because it will kill
the school budget.' But it was publicly discussed and no state
regulator came in and said 'well you're violating a state mandate.'
So in terms of the legal implications of continuing the way we
operate today, I don't know the answer to that. I would say we
should be moving toward a system which accounts for things in their
proper place.
HB: The administration is really
pushing for it this time around. The school department can always
make the argument that we can't afford it...
TA: Understood...
HB: I think we kind of tried that, but
the administration and the president of the city council- the city's
really on board for going forward with this and they're going to not
cut that check for FICA next year. There's nothing the school board
can do about that.
TA: Right...
HB: The other piece of it- the BERS
takes a charter change, which takes an act of the legislature.
TA: Sure. So short answer- Do I think
we should properly account for things based on where the benefit goes
to? Yes. Do I acknowledge that there's a sticker-shock problem?
Absolutely, which is one of the reasons these situations have
persisted for so long.
HB: One of the rationales that Jonathan
used for this is that the non-teacher employee retirement costs used
to be much lower. There used to be fewer non...
TA: There has been growth, yes...
HB: There's been an expansion partially
at the administrative level- folks like the diversity coordinator
draws from the city retirement. Do you think that in a way this
might be healthy for the school department because we feel the actual
costs of being top heavy at an administrative level?
TA: I think it is appropriate for the
school board, working with the district leadership, to be accountable
to the cost that it imposes broadly on the taxpayer. And I don't
mean that in a negative way.
HB: I've thought about this and I think
maybe it's going to make the school department think twice about the
people it hires... or think a little more carefully about...
TA: ...Because they'll own the full
costs, rather than a portion of the costs...
HB: So in a sense, as a board member
I'm thinking there's no good side to this for the school department.
We're just losing money. But there might be this hidden
silver-lining in there that it makes us be more careful with who we
hire.
TA: Well it's like anything. People
thing that if you have to pay the full cost, you're more careful
about making that decision.
HB: You own it.
TA: And Burlington voters historically
have been willing to pay more to express their values through policy,
so it may be that voters are appreciative of this challenge and the
school board will be met with friendly votes at the ballot.
HB: We'll see, because we'll definitely
be asking for money. Let's see- Do you happen to have an opinion
about whether the lack of financing for the parking garage at the
airport had anything to do with this FAA investigation for the over
payments, or is that just purely coincidental?
TA: I didn't ask for the investigation,
so I don't know. The investigation- if you looked at what they said,
it's that they received- not an allegation- but they received
information from- theoretically probably somebody in the City of
Burlington suggesting that there were improper payments being made,
and that they are obligated to look into it. So it seems like it was
almost complaint-driven. Which is not to speak to its merits one way
or the other, but in terms of whether it's coincidental, it depends
on the person that brought the complaint.
HB: OK. Fair enough...
TA: ... and it wasn't me.
HB: And you have no idea who that is?
TA: No.
HB: Let's see... In February Bob Kiss
sent an email to the city council discussing specific legislation he
was working with you on. Apparently at that point and maybe still, I
don't know, you were sitting on the Senate Committee on Economic
Development, Housing and General Affairs...
TA: Yup. I'm the vice-chair.
HB: OK, so you're still on that. So
do you remember the legislation that we're talking about? That would
allow Burlington Telecom to enter into a public-private partnership?
TA: Now I remember a blog post about it
that was incorrect.
HB: The email from Bob Kiss…
They wanted to include “general enabling authority for joint
ventures in title 24, chapter 54, clarify that joint ventures are
eligible for” state money... Did the committee get that done,
or did the legislature pass that?
TA: You may know that the legislature
took up a far reaching telecommunications bill this year intending to
accelerate the full build out of broadband to the whole state of
Vermont by the end of 2013- after the Douglas administration failed
to reach it by 2010. The difference maker now is that something
close to 200 million dollars of federal money is coming in to support
the build out for broad band, and there's the hope that cell phone
coverage could piggy-back along some of the technology. At about
the same time... in late January, early February was when our
committee- the economic development committee was the first committee
to take up the bill. At the time it appeared that the city was close
to some of the potential private partners to reaching some type of
agreement. Obviously seven months have passed. That has not come to
fruition. But there was talk at the time. Terry Dorman and these
others were fielding letters of interesting and things from private
partners?
HB: Are you talking about private
partners for Burlington Telecom or private partners for the build out
of the state?
TA: Private partners for Burlington
Telecom. At the same time we're looking at a build out throughout
the entire state of Vermont, to get them up to a modern, acceptable
level of broad band, letters of interest were being received in the
city. So I got in touch with our city attorney Ken Schatz. Now I
should let you know, despite what your post said, I never spoke to
Bob Kiss about this issue.
HB: Oh, no... Oh you didn't...Well I
mean, I'm just quoting from...
TA: Whatever his email said...
HB: ...I'm just quoting from his email.
TA: What does he say?
HB: “Senator Ashe informed us
that the Senate Committee on Economic Development...”
TA: “Us.” “ Us.”
Just so you know, I called Ken Schatz.
HB: Ok.
TA: I'm just telling you the history.
I called Ken Schatz and I said “is there anything currently
that would prohibit Burlington Telecom from successfully reaching a
public-private partnership?” Which, to me seems like the only
way forward for Burlington Telecom. And at the time, he felt that
the language in statue that the language in statute that the
legislature had approved for Burlington Telecom in our charter,
didn't clearly communicate the ability to form public-private
partnership. So then I started speaking with legislative leaders,
and saying “look- I think we're all on the same page- that
Burlington Telecom is unlikely to continue in its current iteration
into the indefinite future. If this language was necessary would you
be willing to entertain it?” Because I'm no fool, I know that
many people view this as a political land mine. But if it was going
to be required to allow a private partner to be on board, then I
didn't care about the risk, because it was the right thing to do. We
continued to look at the issue over the next- I'd say week or two. I
don't know when the actual decision was made not to pursue it- but
determined that the charter language actually did accommodate a
private-public partnership- at which time I remember meeting with
John Campbell and Karen Marshall, who's the state czar for telecom,
and we said 'yeah it doesn't make sense to go forward because the
language in current already permits it to go forward.'
HB: So the concerns from Dorman and
Schatz were maybe out of you think, an abundance of caution?
TA: It might have been an abundance of
caution. But once I communicated that- and we had Ken on speaker
phone. Me, John Campbell, Karen Marshall- we were the three in the
room and then Ken was on speaker phone. Once we pointed out the
specific language and went though it once or twice and read it out
loud to ourselves we said 'ok we don't think we need to move forward'
and that got pulled out. So, in terms of close coordination with the
mayor, that was not going on. I wouldn't call it a courtesy call,
but it was a due diligence to make sure that something we could all
agree on was ready. And in fact I did check in with the city
councilors and that was important. You know my own view- from a
legislative place.
HB: Well it's funny- because the way
the email is written it sounds like you and Bob were working
hand-in-hand on doing that.
TA: You should have asked me.
HB: ...uh...well..but...
TA: And there were city councilors- I
don't know how you found out. A city councilor must have shared it
with you- but I was actually reaching out directly to city councilors
asking them to confirm that if it was required that they'd be
comfortable moving forward and the answer was yes from everybody I
heard back from. I mean trust me. I knew that there was a political
land mine right in front of me, so I wanted to make sure that we were
all on the same page. That has been my belief really, since I got to
the senate which is that if there's going the be any legislative
relief needed to accommodate the future of Burlington Telecom, no one
will touch it with a ten foot pole unless everybody is working as a
team... so if at any point you want to look through the email that
Bob had sent, I'm happy to...
HB: [pointing to hard copy] It's right
there...
TA: I know, but in terms of vetting it
for specific things...
HB: I hear what you're saying. I mean
it's a spin. It's sort of the way it's spun.
TA: Yeah.
HB: So you reached out to the city
basically, not necessarily to Bob...
TA: Right. To Ken Schatz specifically.
HB: And nothing much came of it because
you determined no change was needed in the language.
TA: Sometimes the best legislation is
...knowing that you don't need any legislation.
HB: ...is no legislation.
Oh...Usually... You were quoted in that video where you're talking
about Burlington Telecom as saying- what was being offered by the
private sector- and I had the exact quote here- can't seem to find
it... was basically a 'crappy product at high prices' paraphrasing.
TA: Yes. It might even be an exact
quote.
HB: Are you concerned that if
Burlington Telecom enters into a private-public partnership, that
they're more likely to offer a crappy product for high prices?
TA: Well unquestionably tax payers
would lose control over operations to some extent. Either fully or
partially. The difference today is that there's no longer a monopoly
providing telecom in Burlington. We've got two competitors.
Assuming we have a private partner, there will be two people
competing for every Burlington household rather than the old days
where basically you had one, and then maybe some people had
satellite, or whatever.
HB: So you would rule out Comcast being
that partner ? [Laughter.]
TA: My interest is in having 17 million
dollars off the backs of taxpayers, and if it comes down to a point
where they're the only people ready to step up and suggest something,
would I be heartbroken? Absolutely. But would I have to seriously
entertain it as mayor? Yes. It doesn't bring me any pleasure to say
it either.
HB: Oh yes.“...the for-profit
corporations were delivering a crappy product for high prices...”
that's the exact quote.
TA: And I think most people in
Burlington agree. That's why they voted overwhelmingly to go forward
with Burlington Telecom.
HB: I gotta tell you personally, and
I'm off the script here, I feel like Burlington Telecom did not live
up to what I had hoped it would live up to. When it was first being
rolled out I had this vision that there would be an unlimited number
of channels of local programming- that you're gonna get the school
plays, that you're gonna get all the different commission meetings...
and practically anyone would have their own channel if they wanted
because of the unlimited broadband potential. And it seemed like
what we ended up getting, with the exception of maybe a couple of
channels like Current, and Al Jazeera English, basically the same
crap you can get with Comcast or Dish Network.
TA: I think that the former general
manager highlighted what is an exciting potential, and obviously that
has not come to fruition. That's not to say that the infrastructure
isn't there to have that in the future.
HB: Do you agree?
TA: I agree that we have not reached
the stage where many of us had hoped it would reach in terms of
creative and exciting opportunities for people in Burlington. Trust
me. I remember being on the city council and suggesting that we
could have people doing distance learning, from their home. You
could have people doing their doctors visits... health and wellness
to seniors all over the city...
HB: Yeah. That sort of thing.
TA: School plays... UVM hockey
games... UVM women's basketball... That was the vision. And the
thing is the technology is still there for that vision, and I think
some of the lessons that we've learned the hard way in the meantime,
have made that vision less likely to be realized.
HB: So what other committees besides
the senate committee on economic development, housing and general
affairs are you on? And why wold you want to give it all up?
TA: My first term I was on economic
development. Hinda was actually the vice-chair. Hinda Miller. And
I was also on State Institutions. That's the State's capitol plan,
so it spends about 80 million dollars on buildings and parks and
conservation and other things.
HB: So you would be, like, the
committee to decide what to do with the Waterbury complex?
TA: Yes. Right now that committee is
working on that. But my second term I became vice-chair of economic
development and on senate finance, and left institutions. Senate
finance does everything from utilities, tax policies, health
insurance oversight, banking, a whole range of policy areas. Why
would I give it up?
HB: You sort of oversee BISHCA?
TA: Yeah. Aspects of BISCA. So we're
not the ones determining what should be the required covered health
insurance items, but we're overseeing the rate-setting process,
amongst other involvements...
HB: Which is tricky...
TA: Yes. And so, on the most recent
health reform bill in 2011, our committee's purview on the bill was
to look at the exchanges, and how they would technically operate, but
not talk about what the key criteria would be...
HB: So you're laying the ground work
for compliance with the health law.
TA: Yes. Exactly. You know, I love
being on the senate. Every day I go in that building, I look around.
I say to myself, I can't believe I get to do this. It is a powerful
experience and I feel like in a short period of time I've learned the
ropes and try to be an impact player on all the key issues. And it
gave me pause. I don't take it lightly that I've been given an
amazing opportunity by voters in the county to serve there. The city
of Burlington is the place I've really grown up. I've become an
adult here. I owe a lot to the city and its people and the
opportunity to run the city as its leader is an amazing opportunity
and if voters allow me to do that I'll be totally grateful. I'll do
the best job I can for the next three years, and if they do not
choose me, I will be thankful that I've been through this process and
I'm going to go back to the senate and keep trying to do the best job
that I can possibly do.
HB: On November 9th Fair
Game written by Andy Bromage- He quotes you saying “...He
promises he would not run as a Prog if he loses the caucus. Ashe is
less definite about his senate seat. He says he wouldn’t seek
reelection in 2012, but might hang on to the seat beyond next March
to cast critical votes and ensure that Chittenden County isn’t
“one vote short.” It was a little unclear. Does that
mean you might keep the senate seat if you're elected mayor?
TA: Well first and foremost, as I have
said unequivocally from day one- if I do not win the Democratic
caucus, I am out of the mayor's race, and for reasons I can't explain
there are people who continue to suggest, even after I mentioned it
in my speech at the caucus, that I will stay in the race, which has
never been true, and it continues to not be true. That's number one.
My comment here was that if I am elected mayor, I will not seek the
senate again.
HB: Re-election?
TA: Right. The question was really
regarding when I would resign, and I would resign after winning the
mayor's seat. My caveat was that if there were imminent votes that
would occur before a successor could be appointed, that rose to some
substantial level- let's say a budget that was going to be Draconian-
and that I didn't want Chittenden County voters to be short a vote on
it...
HB: Do you have any reason to think
anything like that is coming?
TA: I have no reason to believe
something like that's coming, on the other hand, I've seen a lot of
crazy stuff go on in Montpelier and my point was- if in late March
there's going to be a vote on a core issue of importance to a lot of
people in this city and in this county, I don't think I should swear
off the opportunity to make a quick drive down to Montpelier, cast my
vote, get back up here and then resign after.
HB: Could 'late March' extend into
September, October?
TA: No.No...
oHB: Because obviously, it would be
hard to do both jobs.
TA: And I would not intend to do so.
It was really just saying that there could be a vote of such deep
significance that to leave voters short a vote- I think the trade off
of having the next mayor of Burlington make a 45 minute drive south,
cast a vote, then make the 45 minute drive back north, would be worth
it. But unquestionably my focus will be in Burlington if I win that
office.
HB: Ok here's a multi-part question.
TA: Yah.
HB: Did you talk to Bob Kiss about your
intention to run before you announced?
TA: No.
HB: Do you know what Bob plans to do?
TA: No... despite what you've written.
HB: Well it was just hard to believe
that he doesn't... I mean it seems like you guys were so tight at one
point...
TA: We were ne...
HB: Well, or... at least you endorsed
him uh... pretty heartily on '09 for re-election. You nominated him-
so it seemed to me you probably were working together, but if you say
you weren't, ok... and lastly... Who's more qualified to be mayor-
Miro Weinberger or Bob Kiss? [Laughter.] That's just meant to be a
tough question. I'm sure you're not happy with it, but what's your
answer?
TA: I'll let others decide that. Who's
the...?
HB: [Laughter.]
TA: Give me a break. I mean I'm still
responding to the fact that you said I've been closely coordinating
with him, which is not true. I haven't spoken with him about this
ever.
HB: No I just said that it was hard to
believe that you weren't. I didn't say that you were.
TA: If you had asked, I would have told
you. If you had asked anyone who knows me, they would have told
you... Instead of writing it.
HB: I didn't write it as a fact. I
wrote it as speculation. I didn't say 'it is a fact' but thank you
for setting the record straight...
TA: You got it.
HB: And again, I really appreciate the
interview...
TA: Yes. Of course.
HB: Ok. Yeah uh... so technically the
answer to that question- I mean it's a trick question... the person
who's...
TA: I have said I will support the
winner of the Democratic caucus. I said that in my speech, at the
caucus, and I don't lie.
HB: Ok, ok...I guess during one of the
debates you were less solid on that... something about 'the high
road...'
TA: Were you at that?
HB: No, but...
TA: Let me be clear about what I said.
The question was asked 'do each of you agree to support the winner of
the caucus if it's not you. I had to answer first which always
happens to me- because of my last name usually- this time it was the
order we were sitting in and I said 'that is a fair thing to ask us
to to...' Now I'm paraphrasing. And the answe was '...Yes. But, if
someone runs a low-road campaign, I don't think it's fair to ask any
of us to support that, but otherwise, yes.'
HB: But at this point you're convinced,
probably, that Miro won't be running a low... I mean you've seen
enough of his campaign to...
TA: I said at the end of what I
believed would be the terminus of the caucus, that I would support
the winner of the caucus.
HB: Did they botch the caucus by
sending everyone home after the third round? Was that a mistake?
TA: I wouldn't use the word “botch.”
I would say the one mistake... I mean it was a complicated process
that was run very smoothly, although it took a lot of time, but it
was run very smoothly. The one mistake, and it was an honest mistake
was suggesting to people that they could go home after casting the
final vote and catch the results on the news or on channel 17,
because a number of people felt like that was the signal that they
should go home, because it had been a long day.
HB: It had been a long day.
TA: And I think that most people felt
when you only have two candidates in a runoff, one of them will win,
and so everybody was reasonable to leave, Steve Howard was reasonable
to suggest they had reason to leave, if they didn't want to stick
around for another hour. It was an honest mistake.
HB: I hear you. And I guess the way
the executive committee of the Burlington Democratic party decided
was not necessarily the way you would have chosen. You wanted to
have a re-vote sooner?\
TA: I would have liked it to been the
Sunday immediately following the caucus, so one week later. I think
voters had their information. They wanted the process over before
the holidays. They don't want to get barraged in the next coming
weeks with literature and phone calls. So I want it to be done
already. And I think almost unanimously people I've talked to agree
with that statement, whether they support me, Miro or somebody else.
But I can appreciate- as I said all along, I would abide by whatever
decision they made. They felt the only way they could manage the
process was to set it out in the future. I think the voters weren't
happy about it, but I understand that it's a volunteer committee that
needs to do this.
HB: I guess they also need to do
logistical planning- like where are they going to do it? Memorial
Auditorium again or...?
TA: I believe they were making too much
of that, but they wanted the process to be one with integrity, and
they felt comfortable the way they moved forward.
HB: Should the caucus move to an
instant-runoff voting system? Could they change the party bylaws to
run it that way? A lot of people were tweeting that that would have
made sense, during that long caucus process.
TA: Well I think, without speeches
between each round by the candidates, the value of having the
repeated exercise of voting was diminished because you didn't have
opportunity for new information. And one of the arguments that's
made, for having a traditional run-off system is that it gives voters
a chance to reevaluate the playing field- find new information either
from the candidates or about them and cast a vote with a new sense of
perspective on the race. And that was not possible in this race,
because the moment they announced results from one round they
immediately went into voting in the next round.
HB: Right. It's also not possible with
IRV.
TA: What I'm saying is, they
essentially were the same process, except one just took eight hours
and the other one would have taken maybe an hour and a half, two
hours. So I leave that to them. I think having a muli-candidate
situation, a more than two candidate situation, obviously created
unusual conditions.
HB: Did you support IRV?
TA: Yes.
HB: Who would have been your second
choice out of the other three Democratic candidates?
TA: I was asked that at a few house
parties and my answer was always to speak to the skills, the assets
that I thought the candidates brought, rather than say who I was
going to vote for if I was toast.
HB: To be fair, I asked Bram and Jason
Lorber the very same question and neither really gave me a direct
answer. Nobody will of course. It's still fun asking.
TA: Well you can ask this time because
there's no second chance. Unless there's another tie, in which case
I'll vote for myself again.
HB: Ok I got more tough questions.
More, more tough questions...
TA: Let's get to them.
HB: Let's see, your campaign site says
you worked as a union organizer for United Academics at UVM?
TA: Yes.
HB: United Academics keeps of people in
what it calls the “UVM six-figure club.” Last year they
listed Jane Knodell's salary as the fourth highest at UVM at 251
thousand, plus. What are you hearing about the job she's doing as
provost, and is she worth the money?
TA: Well first question... what to I
hear about the job she's doing- I hear that she's doing a
tremendously positive job and has been a very stable force, with the
transition in the president's office to an interim president. And
I'm not surprised in the least that she's doing a fantastic job.
She's very bright. Good managerial skill and has a tremendous amount
of respect, I think, across the board at the University.
HB: Even among the rank and file
faculty and staff?
TA: Well I'm not in regular
conversations with them about Jane or anybody else. I worked at
United Academics in spring 2002 for a period that was fairly brief
and I worked as a support staff for United Academics. I was helping
with newsletters and stuff. I was actually organizing nurses in
Brattleboro. In terms of the salary...
HB: Is she worth a quarter million
dollars? Should anyone at UVM be getting paid that much? Did you
read for example, Philip Baruth's recent piece on wanting a
'sustainable' UVM president?
TA: Well a lot of people are talking
about sustainable departments at UVM too, and I think when people see
the salaries of some professors they raise the same questions. And
so the question really is 'what is the basis of comparison?' I mean
these are the fair questions that people should ask. Should we be
comparing the UVM provost's salary to provosts' salaries at other New
England public universities or should we be comparing it to
managerial positions here in Vermont of roughly the same scale
budgetary responsibility? Should a faculty member at UVM making 90
thousand dollars be compared to someone at the University of
Massachusetts or at a private college, or someone working in a public
school. Those are types of questions that I think are fair. I'd
have to see this in better context- is the short answer.
HB: Ok.
TA: Am I concerned with ballooning
salaries in the public and private sectors? Yes. Of course, because
that's all dollars that diminish the pool to be distributed to people
who work their butts off and don't make that much money.
HB: Right and there's a lot of them. A
lot of them.
TA: Understood. And every time you
give them a small pay raise people say that's why we've got to raise
your taxes- because you gave more money to a para-educator or to a
custodial person. You know we never hear about that on the high end.
HB: Right. And even other jobs. The
retail sector. Some of the lowest paying jobs out there and they're
hard jobs.
TA: My greater concern is with the rise
in the number of V.P.s frankly, at the University of Vermont with the
ballooning of the administration. The provost- there always needs to
be a provost who's in charge of a massively complex organization, and
that person's going to get paid pretty well. Whether that's the
right number or not, I'd have to think about a little bit more. But
what has unquestionably happened is the growth in the number of
administrative positions and the extent to which those are necessary
positions warrants some strong consideration. And I'm not sure the
board of trustees has ever really answered that question very
effectively. Why such an amazing growth in the last fifteen years or
so, since when I attended UVM, in those positions? And that's where
the real money is, I should note.
HB: The vice-presidents?
TA: Whether Jane makes 200, or 250 or
150- that stands in small comparison to the growth of 15 or 20 V.P.s
each of them making in the 100, 150-175 range. So some of it's we
don't want to be taking away the emphasis on where it should be which
is a bloated bureaucracy rather than one particular person.
HB: So are you an Miro going to have a
live debate? His website says there's going to be a web cast from
the Burlington Free Press office on December 1 at noon, but that's
pretty lame.
TA: No one will watch it.
HB: Who's gonna watch that? I mean, is
there going to be a live one in front of an audience?
TA: It is my hope that we will have at
least one, maybe two or three.
HB: Is Miro ducking it?
TA: I think the real problem is
organizationally, the people who would step up and conduct a forum or
a debate are going through the same things you and I have been going
through- holidays- trying to schedule something in a short period of
time.
HB: Do you have any information that it
might get done? Are you working with people?
TA: I hope that in the next couple days
we will have a couple identified, and they would be for next week,
early in the week. That's my hope.
HB: Good. I think that would be useful
since there is this extra time between the votes, it's like you said,
why don't we utilize that time to get more information and continue
our analysis of the candidates?
TA: Agreed.
HB: It seems like Miro hasn't been as
willing to do that, or as anxious.
TA: You have to ask him... I would do a
debate every day, if I had the opportunity, I think in part having a
record is a blessing and a curse, as you know, and you get pegged for
some things that are fair, some that aren't fair, and you take credit
for some things that are fair, and probably that aren't fair. But
something I'm always eager to do is communicate honestly where I fit
into the picture in Burlington, in the state senate over the past 8
years. And having experience, I think, is helpful. And having the
historical knowledge about what has been tried, what has worked, what
hasn't worked, lessons you've learned- some the good way, some the
hard way- come out in that type of conversation where it's not just
'do you think we should have a visionary transportation future?' But
it's 'oh yeah, we tried the following things and they don't work
because of these reasons, or 'we already looked at this, but no one
wanted to pay for it so let's look at what's realistic.' Those are
the types of things that a debate can tease out, and now with only
two rather than four candidates, you can really get a flavor for the
two of them
HB: Do you think going though elections
and election cycles has seasoned you in a way Miro hasn't been? Do
you think you have a thicker skin, or more used to what comes at you
in an election than he might be?
TA: I think anyone who's served in a
place like the Burlington city council, or who's run for office and
served and tried to be in the middle of all the action- you face
criticism, you get shots taken at you...
HB: Right. Perfect strangers insult
you. That's just part of it.
TA: And it happens... yeah. I think
that's a valuable lesson does that make me a superior debater or
candidate? I'll let others decide that. But when I get
cyber-bullied today, it's different than the first time. I just
understand that it comes with the territory and that you can't please
everybody all the time...”
HB: I mean people have been hurling the
very same insults at Bernie Sanders for 30 years...
TA: It comes with the territory but the
first few times it happened to me when I was on the Burlington city
council, it was different than today. Today I say, 'look- some of
these people are upset, not necessarily at me, but at something
else... I'll be the thing that they're able to punish, they think
and... they feel like they're communicating their political beliefs
that way, and I have to just not take it personally. And that's a
difficult thing to do. I mean you've been down this road. It's not
always easy.
HB: That's true.... There are two
pretty famous videos mentioned in the November 9 Fair Game- one of
you endorsing Bob Kiss for mayor in '09; one of you downplaying BT's
problems in November of '09 and really putting the blame on
commissioner David O’Brien you say “what I'm here to
tell you on behalf of all the happy customers of Burlington Telecom,
and on behalf of all the people with sanity and reason in the city of
Burlington is that there is no scandal, there is no controversy,
there is no poor health of our municipal telecom service.”
and also that other quote that we just mentioned. Andy Bromage wrote
that you call the videos “personally embarrassing” but
says their context is being ignored. “Do I feel like a
buffoon because the video makes me look like I’m out of touch
with reality? Of course,” you're quoted as saying, “...but
does the spirit of what I was saying hold true in some ways? Yes.”
So, what is the context of those
videos that is being ignored and in what ways does the spirit of what
you were saying hold true?
TA: Well I'd say there's two things.
And the first is that literally in the days immediately preceding
that event where I was video taped, both the commissioner of public
service and out state auditor Tom Salmon suggested that- a financial
firm that was in discussions to refinance BT's debt, that even if
they arrived at a deal to refinance BT, that they would do everything
in their power to prevent it from happening because they believed
there was criminal mischief going on, ie- people pocketing money in
the city of Burlington. When I was saying “there is no
scandal, there is no controversy” in the context of that time-
people knew what was going on in the news- it was to suggest that we
may have a 17 million dollar hole, which had recently been, kind of,
unearthed, but it's not because people are criminals. As I obviously
said when I described myself as looking like a buffoon the way the
video is presented- that obviously doesn't bring me pleasure after
eight years to have one video that makes me look like a buffoon, or
maybe two depending on your perspective. But the 'no poor health of
our municipal telecom service' unquestionably was an in-artful way of
communicating that if we were able to finance the debt at that time,
the taxpayers would be off the hook. Now it's one sentence. If you
want to say 'yeah but this one phrase sums up your entire view on
whether Burlington Telecom was going just fantastically' I would say
that is not my view, and it would have been crazy at the time to
suggest that everything was just hunky-dory. It was an in-artful way
of communicating that the tax payers were about to get taken off the
hook in a manner which was consistent with previous refinancings that
had occurred. So...does the spirit of what I was saying hold true?
I believe in some ways, yes. That's what I'm communicating.
Now...if you watch that video, that's not the only time I use the
word controversy. I was speaking extemporaneously and on two other
occasions I say “the controversy is...” suggesting that
yeah, I understand. This is not good. Take a 15 second segment of
it, it presents a different picture. So take that for what it is.
HB: So this maybe the hardest question
I have to ask...
TA: Ok
HB: Jonathan Leopold on Public Access
on April 18th of 2010 said in reference to the 17 million
dollars spent on BT from the cash pool... “This was not
something that was done in secret. In fact we briefed the Board of
Finance at the Budget hearing in May of 2008 on the fact that we were
having trouble financing it- that Citi Capital had gotten out of the
financing business and it would be a problem to get the financing
done on terms that would be sufficiently favorable for Telecom to be
able to do well. We didn't in any way keep this information from the
Board of Finance. It was not generally known to the rest of the city
council but the Board of Finance is the immediate oversight board of
Telecom. We actually reported in November of '08 that we were having
a problem with the draw on pooled cash between Burlington Telecom
Burlington Electric and The School Department.” In November of
'08 Telecom owed pooled cash about ten million, BED owed pooled cash
$15.”
TA: When I was on the board of
finance...
HB: Which you were in November of '08
and May of '08...
TA: Yeah May was probably my first or
second meeting. Yup. And I was on through March but March there
weren't that many meetings in March because of the elections...
HB: But you were on it during the time
frame...
TA: I'm just telling you when I was on.
In this time frame. Yup. So I would point out- if you remember
when Jonathan did a presentation to the city council explaining how
they all had missed the boat, and by 'they all' he meant including
people like me and Andy Montroll and Kurt who were no longer on the
council at that point.
HB: That was after the election of
'09...
TA: After the election of '09...
HB: But we're talking about before the
election, before Bob's re-election...
TA: Right but what I'm saying is, not
on this public access show, but at a city council meeting you may
remember that Jonathan did a presentation where he went item by item
saying- this is when they did the resolution to basically fire him
for his role in Burlington Telecom, I don't remember exactly when it
occurred...
HB: This the one where he said he
wasn't going to be scapegoated...
TA: And he said 'connect the dots' and
all that stuff.
HB: And he also said you don't just
walk away from a 33 million dollar debt.
TA: Right, he was referencing an
earlier comment he made saying that.
HB: I remember that meeting.
TA: So in this meeting...
HB: Which you weren't at because you
were off the council at that point...
TA: Right. But he referenced this May
'08 meeting and he says 'Did the finance board know?' Well at the May
2008 board of finance meeting, Kurt Wright was on by phone, and Kurt
said “Jonathan I need to leave in a minute, is there anything I
need to know?” and he said “well no, we're going into
executive session to talk about construction issues related to
Burlington Telecom,” I'm not sure if there was anything else,
but at least including Burlington Telecom, and 'build out questions'
or something- “but I can brief you later.” And that's his
basis for saying me Andy and Kurt knew everything about what was
going on, and everything was perfectly presented and life was just
great.
HB: He was just saying that at that
meeting in May of '08 he told the board of finance BT was having
trouble finding financing. You don't remember him saying that?
TA: I wouldn't dispute it if he said
that because that was well known. I think generally the council knew
we were trying to seek financing for Burlington Telecom.
HB: Right and it wasn't going well.
TA: Right. I believe him if he said he
said in the meeting, but that's hardly a “smoking gun”
that suggests we all knew exactly what was going on.
HB: No, but like “there is no
poor health” or whatever that you were saying there- how does
that square with them not being about to find financing?
TA: The goal of the city council had
been to refinance BT's debt to help make a more healthy operating
budget in the near term years, at the same time adding subscribers-
not just subscribers but profitable subscribers which had been part
of the business promise under the original general management.
HB: I am not a profitable subscriber.
TA: A lot of people aren't.
HB: I just get the lowest internet and
that's it. I had the triple play but...
TA: At least they don't lose on you.
They just don't make much.
HB: It's gonna take a while to repay
the...
TA: Cost to get to you. Yeah. As I
say, if you want to steal one phrase out of things I've said over the
course of 8 years- feel free.
HB: Well I mean, uh... I'm...
TA: You can parse these words, but this
is how people in email parse things- one phrase- and I take
responsibility because I said it, don't get me wrong- but in the
sense that if we were able to refinance our debt, which was currently
under consideration, to get the tax payers off the hook, and someone
else- a private investor feeling like it's a good investment...
HB: Piper Jaffray?
TA: We don't know if they would have
signed the dotted line. There was no deal. There was a discussion
about arriving at a deal.
HB: Do you think the city council made
a mistake not going for that?
TA: I think the city council made a
mistake by not even entertaining it in a meaningful way. Because the
taxpayers getting off the hook for 17 million to me was more
important than what was going on at the time...
HB: But ultimately aren't the taxpayers
on the hook for whatever Burlington Telecom owes?
TA: I disagree with Jonathan in that
case. Obviously you don't walk away, as he put it, you do not walk
away from- 33 million? Is that the number he said?
HB: Whatever it was. Maybe he said 30.
TA: But let's better understand that,
if you want to parse phrases. What if the other side walks away?
Because they're not getting the money they thought they were going to
get.
HB: I'm not sure I follow.
TA: Which is to say private sector
investors made an investment in Burlington Telecom's future thinking
that they would make money. If they concluded that they were not
making money, then they should cut their losses.
HB: How do they do that?
TA: You tell me.
HB: They're out the money because the
loaned it out to us. Do we have a moral obligation to pay back that
debt?
TA: As Jonathan said, technically we
have no obligation. And I will say, that the advice from the city
attorney...
HB: Technically we do have some
obligation. They own all the fiber in the ground. Technically they
own all the equipment at Burlington Telecom.
TA: And they could take it back. At
present, if they could get pubic service board approval, Citi Capital
that is, they could go in and take that stuff out.
HB: So they're suing us for the money.
They're also suing us for the money that BT is making with the
equipment that it owns now. Do they have a case?
TA: I wouldn't let them touch a single
penny of taxpayer dollars. Now you raised the issue of lines and
underground pipes and stuff. If there were no better situation, and
the end game here was they were taking their fiber optics and going
home- would having someone open up a manhole cover for them be
something I would oppose? No. But in terms of whether they have a
claim on 33 milllion dollars of city money- Citi Capital made a 33
million dollar investment, and they didn't get what they hoped they
were going to get. They weren't guaranteed anything, and it turns
out their investment, which they theoretically vetted, and they
thought was a winner, was wrong.
HB: But they're also suing Joe...
TA: But let me just say our city
attorney, who was then Joe McNeil for most of this period,
communicated that the taxpayer was not at risk for their private
investment. You should ask other city councilors that question to
confirm what I'm saying. Because that was the presentation by the
city attorney whose obligation is to communicate our legal risk in
those situations.
HB: Jonathan also said in that public
access show that in November of '08 he told the board of finance that
BT owed 10 million to the cash pool. So did you know that Burlington
Telecom was in debt to the cash pool by at least 10 million dollars
before the election of '09?
TA: What as a board of finance member
through that period- and again you could talk to Kurt and Andy to see
if they verify what I'm telling you- What we knew was that the city
was seeking a certificate of public good amendment to condition 17,
which was building out to 100% but a date certain, I think had
already passed at this point. So that was in the summer of '08, I
believe, that authorization was given by, first the board of finance,
then the city council, to go to the public service board to change
that. Second was a communication- and I don't know if this was to
the board of finance or to the full city council, because there were
conversations in executive session and some in public session both
over this period of time, that while we awaited the refinancing of
BT's debt- there was never a vote or anything- it was discussed- that
an option would be to use pooled cash, and the explanation was 'the
way we've done with BED in short-term periods, and then we pay it
back when we get, bond financing or something' because that had been
done in the past.
HB: Was it a discussion about that
possibility or was the discussion that it had been happening and
that...
TA: I remember it as a discussion that
it could happen, and there was no vote. There never was any vote on
this authorizing it. Another question is, the use of the pooled cash
in terms of controls, whether there's authority in the charter or
whether it's silent about making draws from the pooled cash. I don't
know the answer to that at present.
HB: At least you knew that there was a
compliance issue with condition 60, that there had been money from
the pooled cash...
TA: No. No. No.
HB: So as far as you knew it had all
been paid back within 60 days?
TA: It hadn't even been raised as an
issue. No, no. We were talking about how in the past they'd used
pooled cash. We had the certificate of public good amendment we
authorized the city team to go to the public service board was for 17
which was the build out- the time frame it had to be built out, not
the use of pooled cash.
HB: It's a little confusing. I though
one of the conditions that was discussed was that maybe we need to
get the public service board to lighten up on was condition 60
because we have borrowed from the cash pool longer than 60 days.
TA: I think that conversation was
occurring between BT and the city attorney's office, not with the
board of finance or city council. I haven't heard anyone suggest
that that was the case. Throughout all this, I haven't heard a
single soul suggest that that was the case.
HB: So you did not know before the
election of '09 that there was a draw against the cash pool that was
lasting longer than 60 days.
TA: Precisely. And I don't know, I
mean you tell me. If you've heard anything different from anyone
else...
HB: Well I have. I've heard from
Jonathan Leopold that he told the board of finance that.
TA: No, any other city councilor who
was there. Trust me.
HB: Well if Kurt wins the Republican
nomination I'm sure I'll ask him.
TA: I mean it's a fair question...We
knew that it might be used as a tool to continue with some build out
while this refinancing was underway. This was at some point in '08
And that was sort of the last we heard about it. You know Jonathan
points to the BT budget and other things, and I think like all the
city councilors who he critiqued for their instability to...
HB: Read a budget?
TA: ...read a budget, or whatever- the
extent to which things were highlighted was not very strong. Was it
purposeful? I don't know what's in other people's minds. But that
there were draws going on, the extent to which it was going on, and
the fact that we're in violation of condition 60...
HB: So is there a systemic issue then?
If even the board of finance is being kept in the dark about tens of
millions of dollars coming out of the city's cash pool, is there a
systemic issue? Does the city council not have the resources it
needs to keep up with what's going on, or is there something flawed
about the CAO structure? My feeling about the CAO is it's
essentially like a second mayor. The mayor and the CAO almost have
plausible deniability because of each other. They could almost point
to each other. Of course it's ultimately the mayor's responsibility.
If Leopold is not right, or if he's characterizing the board of
finance discussions from '08 not exactly correctly, or making it seem
like you should have more than you actually did know because he
wasn't being as forthright as he should have been... what's the
remedy?
TA: I think one remedy is clarifying
the use of pooled cash- the process by which dollars can be drawn
from pooled cash which is an inherently risky proposition. Now in
some cases where pooled cash is drawn because there's a third payroll
in a month, property tax payments are dues 15 days later, we know
that the dollars are going to come in. It's a short-term issue.
It's better than borrowing money from a bank. That's not very risky.
Using pooled cash in anticipation of bond financing, in anticipation
of permanent financing, those are more risky propositions.
HB: Right. That's what's biting us
with the airport.
TA: So in my opinion, one system
control is to make sure a vote has to be taken by the city council or
the board of finance. The city council could authorize the board of
finance to do this, to authorize the draws from that pooled cash. To
me it would not throw a wrench into the functions of government., and
it would make sure that you don't have a situation where one half of
the equation takes responsibility for a very significant...
HB: Well let's say we implemented that.
If the board of finance is still getting its information from the
same source... even if that were in place in 2008, if it was still
Leopold giving you all the information you had to make a decision on,
wouldn't you ultimately end up voting the way he want you to? Isn't
there an issue with information dissemination here? I think part of
the reasons the Democrats hired George Cross was because they just
felt like they can't trust the administration any more to give them
all the facts. Should the city council empower itself in other ways
like that? Should they have a staff? Should they
have office space in city hall? Should they get paid? To act as
more of a check on the administration whoever it is?
TA: Well first off, the city council
can always vote no. That's a starting point. The city council has
the authority to vote no on anything it chooses to, and they have
done it a lot in the last year or two.
HB: Right but they're not going to vote
no on something they have no idea about, they have to have the
information to vote no.
TA: Well let me ask you this- If the
CAO whoever it is, says “city council, I'm seeking your
permission to draw 4 million dollars of the pooled cash of the city
in order to fix the bike path, and I'm pretty sure we've got a
federal grant that helps pay for it.” Well the city council's
then in a position of saying “whoa, I'm going to own this too,
if I vote yes. How do we really know, that that federal grant's
going to come through? Can we wait to make sure we've got a
commitment from the federal government to do that?” I think...
HB: Well the city council owns it now
either way still.
TA: Except there's this blurry middle
here in terms of who knew what and how we demonstrate that people
knew things. So part one is having a process that requires city
council approval to make draws from the pooled cash fund. Two- you
asked about 'should there be more pay for city councilors and more
staffing...
HB: I mean so then can do their own
research, they can hire their own analysts, and they don't have to
rely on... Let's take as an example what happened with Brendan
Keleher. He got to keep his private pension, and then the board of
finance voted him another one, the public one and he got to keep
both. And I feel like nobody really knew what was going on there and
somehow that just happened, and everyone was outraged after the fact.
TA: I think would be maybe a more
effective reform- not to add more dollars to the system, but to
perhaps re-purpose some dollars for like, an ombudsman, a financial
ombudsman who is an internal control with an office outside of city
hall with the ability to seek any records at any time and perhaps
with a specific job description that includes being responsive to
city councilors but more than just that. It's not someone who just
responds to the one city councilor with fifty questions every
meeting, but rather someone whose primary purpose is to be sort of an
ongoing auditor of financial controls, systems in place, budgetary
issues and flags...
HB: Wasn't that the idea behind the CAO
in the first place? Wasn't that supposed to be a non-partisan...
TA: Well it functions in a largely
non-partisan way, despite all the furor over the last couple of
years, it is not clear that the CAO structurally is the problem. It
might be that it alone cannot be counted on to...
HB: And I guess ultimately it depends
on who's in the job.
TA: Yeah people make political
distinctions about who's in the office but that doesn't mean the
structure... but if people are saying they need more information, the
question then- how do you do that in a way that will work? I think a
financial ombudsman of some sort is not a bad idea...
HB: That's not bad. That's not bad.
TA: ...if you could do it with dollars
that are already in the system, which includes some of the dollars
city councilors get for staffing, which is limited...
HB: Which is what they're using to hire
George Cross for example.
TA: But George Cross was sort of a
brief intervention. I don't know if he's still...
HB: No, I think he's done.
TA: So it's not a systemic
intervention.
HB: If you're going to use the
operating budget of the city councilors, that can't be systemic...
TA: So that's just an idea.
HB: It's an idea. It's not bad.
TA: And I think Jason Lorber, when he
suggested a systems and controls audit of city government. I
actually think that was a pretty darn good idea, which is somewhat
similar. Saying right off the bat, 'how do we really know that we've
got good controls in place financially?' Not to do a financial audit
, but say, a controls audit. And I remember late in my final year on
the city council we had, I think, the 2007 year city audit report,
and I remember sending a note to Jonathan saying that we really need
to make sure we have good financial controls in place, for primarily
cash oriented operations in city government. This was in the wake of
what was going on at waterfront with the whole scandal...
HB: With Ben Pacy... no, not Ben
Pacy...
TA: Well he was peripherally involved,
but Adam Cate...
HB: The other guy, Adam Cate..
TA: And you'll remember one of the
concerns was that it was a cash business and there were stories that
we were hearing about how cash was being handled. We still had, a
box essentially, that people were putting cash in. It was not a good
system. So those types of things, I think what Jason was onto, I
think would be important to do no matter who wins the race.
HB: A
task force report which Kurt Wright and Karen Paul, who are both
potential rivals in the March election were on reported in 2007 that
in 2006 the pension was underfunded by 32 million dollars. It was
only 77% funded. This was before '08 market crash. Do you
happen to know roughly what the unfunded liability of the pension is
right now?
TA: At present, what I do know is that
as of June 10, 2010 the system was 48 million dollars short of being
100% funded and that's where that number keeps getting thrown around.
What we don't know is where that stands now, 16 months later.
HB: Well that's a more recent number
than I have anyway. In 2010 it was 48.
TA: When you're hearing people throw
out the 48 million number, others have said it. That's what they're
talking about. It's based on the June 2010 snapshot in time by Buck
Associates who’s the actuary for the city. In the meantime
we've had two things happening. One is our obligations are growing,
but, our fund is growing. If you look at the VMERS system- Vermont
Municipal Employees' Retirement System where [inaudible] had the
lion's share of the pension funds... 90% is now managed by VPIC
Vermont Pension Investment Corporation which managers VMERS. And
that fund, obviously starting at a lower point than it was in 2004,
has been doing pretty well in the 15 months since. And you can see
the quarterly reports actually at their website, which might be
interesting for you to look at. It's been going up at more than
projected rates. Which is to say 48 million dollars is not 48
million dollars today, it's some other number.
HB: Which is to say some other number
less than 48 million?
TA: It should be less than 48...
HB: But still probably high... it's
still probably 40 million maybe.
TA: When it was at 48 million dollars
that was around 73% funded so it's even lower than you had here. So
after the market tanked as you point out in 2008 it dropped 4%.
HB: And you look for at least 80%.
TA: You're looking for 80% to be a
'generally accepted to be healthy' fund. So we were down around 73.
And what's happened over the last 15 months, 16 months? The fund has
done better. So now, it's inched up some, right. I don't know that
it's at 80.
HB: Alright but you can't rely on the
markets to make up the gap. What other measures are you looking out.
TA: Well I'll tell you one that's
already happened, and it receives no fanfare because most people just
want to throw out the 'sky is falling' 48 million dollar sum. The
firefighters, just to give an example, in their most recent contract,
signed at long last about 2 months ago or so, agreed to make a
concession that gave a million and a half dollars back into the
system. They agreed to eliminate a certain early retirement
provision where people could serve a certain period of time and then,
receive a certain benefit, and they said 'we will concede that.' That
replenished about a million and a half. Now that won't solve the
problem but that's like a, percent? Whatever it is, a half percent
or a percent towards the good. Now let's say that we're up around
80, what do we do next? Do we try to get to 100% immediately? I
don't think taxpayers can afford to get it up to 100% immediately.
The question is can we incrementally get there in a way that's
healthy for the fund, and doesn't rely, as you know, on a volatile
stock market. I think what it's going to be is a combination of
negotiated changes to the pension, and there aren't going to be a
tremendous number of opportunities, though.
HB: But in terms of the negotiated
changes- That's the crux of my question. Are you willing to
negotiate defined contribution versus defined benefit? Or move
toward that? Or is that against your philosophy?
TA: Well I certainly wouldn't change it
for the people who are already in the system because I just don't
believe you break promises like that. People's future has been built
on a certain expectation. To change it at the last second now...
HB: Ok so for new employees would you
ask them for a defined contribution versus a defined benefit, or
would you ask them for greater contributions, or less benefit...
TA: I would look to greater
contributions and less benefit first, and the reason is we have
trouble recruiting people as is. And all over the country, now this
may be less true today than it was three or four years ago with all
the fast growing suburbs at DC or Las Vegas people were getting hired
at exorbitant first year salaries with tremendous benefits promised
to them, and here in Burlington we were struggling because we were
offering what I think locally is a very fair salary and very good
benefits, but we're competing for police with everyone else. So I
would first look to have them contribute more and perhaps have a
different benefit structure. But I think a defined contribution
would be a dramatic step back in terms of our ability to attract the
best people. And the people of Burlington expect the best police and
fire in particular and they also want high quality service from all
the other people in AFSCME which is general city unionized workforce.
And if they want quality, they question is how much can we upset the
apple cart before we suffer.
HB: So if I'm understanding Kurt Wright
correctly he says that if he becomes mayor he could potentially have
referendum on selling BED be a ballot item next November.
TA: This is Kurt you're talking about.
HB: Kurt, right. Yup. He's on the
city council now, is there any reason he couldn't propose to do that
now? Couldn't he propose to put selling BED on the March ballot
right now as a city councilor?
TA: He could propose selling city hall
on the March ballot right now.
HB: So what is he waiting for? Why do
you think he doesn't do that now?
TA: You'd have to ask him. Good
question. Good question. What can I tell you?
HB: Do you think he would find support
for that?
TA: Well I should hope not. As I've
just pointed out, it is based on what Kurt believes is a global city
debt problem, or financial hole. That is not necessarily correct.
Knock 'em off here. Burlington Telecom- right now the taxpayers are
our 17 million bucks. A private investor, should we be fortunate to
find a good working deal, will make that problem in to something
between zero and 17 million dollars for taxpayers. It might be that
they’re able to trickle enough money on an annual basis to the
taxpayer that we don't have to eat the 17 million dollars. Well,
should we still sell BED to solve that problem? I would think not.
Our retirement system which he cites as about 48 million based on
information that's 16 months old. Should we solve a 48 million
dollar pension problem, if it's not a 48 million dollar problem
today? Maybe we should wait. The next mayor will get the next
report. It comes out more or less in the late winter, early spring.
HB: What Kurt's proposal seems to be
based on is the prospect of us losing the lawsuit from Citi Financial
and suddenly owing 33 million dollars. You know what I mean? Unless
that happens...
TA: A lot of things have to happen for
us to need to throw a hail-Mary with Burlington Electric.
HB: That's what I'm saying. Unless we
lose that lawsuit and suddenly owe a short-term obligation of 33
million, I don't see why we would need to do that.
TA: It's based on a series of
theoreticals and dated information.
HB: And worst-case scenarios in
every...
TA: In every instance. Yes. And I
believe you solve the problem in front of you, not a problem that you
have nightmares about. And each of these problems that we face is a
discreet problem that looked at, can be addressed and ultimately
resolved if we all put our best minds to it. But saying that the
worst case is going to happen in every instance and therefore we sell
Burlington Electric. What does that tell our business community?
'We're a volatile community who overreacts to things and we're going
to put your rates at risk.' I don't think that's the message we want
to send either.
HB: What's your pitch? What are you
going to give the people? What are you going to do for
Burlingtonians if you become mayor? What are you offering?
TA: I would say that I have goals for
what my first term in office would look like. Goal number one would
be to assemble a team that people throughout the city, regardless of
political affiliation will be proud of, that they'll feel confident
of to get us on the path to resolving each of the significant
challenges that the city faces that kind of go without saying. Two-
is to actually set those methods of resolving those challenges in
motion. I want to restore the political morale of this city, and by
that I don't mean 'party this or that.' But I want people who work
for the city to be proud to be city employees the way they used to
be. I want people to be confident and trusting in city hall in a way
they haven't been in a long time. I want to restore the relationship
between the mayor's office and the city council, which was probably
dysfunctional long ago, even when when you were there. But it has
not been a deep relationship ever when I was there under two
different mayors, and I think that alone is going to pay large
dividends. I think I bring to the race and to the mayor's office a
balance of practical experience both in economic development which I
do for a career here in Burlington, with knowledge of where the
city's been, and where I think a lot of people want it to go. I'm
ready to be judged very critically after three years in office on
whether I've succeeded on all those fronts
|
Junktique's Old Site
Jessica Sklar
