selectboard

The boots are in the halls

/ paladin1787 / Leave a comment

When I heard that ICE’s funding was increased so dramatically, I couldn’t just do nothing. You know they target people who *attend* all their immigration hearings, don’t you? Target people trying to do everything right. Why might they want people to behave in unlawful ways? Every possible answer is bone-chilling.

The vast majority of ICE arrestees this year have no criminal records. There are no official repercussions for anyone involved if U.S. citizens are arrested. (Which is illegal.) The administration has set indiscriminate arrest quotas. If you were me, with a seat on the local board, how many of your constituents would have to be taken by masked men for you to try to do something?

Speaking of my board seat: After searching for a place to live in Hartford for about nine months, my partner and I found a house in Lebanon. So we’re moving end of July, and I’m reluctantly leaving the board. As usual, I write here only as myself and certainly don’t speak for the board or town.

For the last meeting where I have a vote—Tuesday July 22—I have proposed a simple ordinance to ban any kind of secret police in Hartford: where you don’t know who’s carrying you away. To be clear: the Hartford PD haven’t been doing this. But ICE have been elsewhere, and the board should make clear they’re not welcome to do it here.

With total anonymity on the table—as it is currently—you might sit at brunch near an ICE agent, in civilian clothes, unaware that just the night before, he fed a small Hartford family into a bureaucratic nightmare that ends in a foreign labor camp from which there is literally no return. And he knew that would be the result. The ICE staffer smiles in your direction. You smile back.

This kind of experience defined life in Nazi Germany. No longer do you have to wonder what that place was like.

For those who watch the board deliberate on Tuesday: don’t let board members you support say they like the general idea but still vote against it locally, on a technicality like “it’s better as a state issue.” That’s precisely the bad-faith argument politicians have been using on abortion (and gun control, gay marriage, etc) for decades. It’s a deflection by powerful people who think you’re naive enough to buy it. I hope you don’t.

In case any board member claims they wanted a bigger “coalition,” or a longer “process” by which this came about… I urge you to remember Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, who gloated that you can dismantle a democracy in front of a liberal’s face piece by piece, and all they’ll do is convene breakout sessions and committee meetings ‘til the boots are in the halls. I urge you to tell the board the *right* decision is simply the one with the right outcome. If the idea is good “on the merits,” then it deserves support no matter the venue, or list of co-sponsors.

As Matthew E. Cochran said, “If you sit down to play a game of chess and your opponent punches you in the face, you’re not going to prevail by getting better at chess.” Now is the time to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. (Technically, that time was long ago, but it is certainly now.)

In the original draft of the ordinance I proposed, the exception for absolutely necessary undercover work was somewhat unclear. So I am posting below a version where that paragraph is slightly amended. I will offer this amendment for consideration at the meeting.

Wow is this concept simple. What should a civil society prevent, and what should it allow? I don’t believe ICE should be able to abduct my neighbors anonymously. If they’re going to come and do that, I want them to at least show their faces and say their names, so the rest of us can decide whether to accept them in polite society. It so happens that something like “social ostracizing” is really important: it may be the only way to prevent fascism.

There is a theoretical basis to anti-fascism. It’s an idea called “the paradox of tolerance.” I urge you to read its summary on Wikipedia. Once you understand it, you too will realize: the only way to truly be nice is to be mean to fascists. So that’s the social dynamic that prevents fascism; what about the official one, of laws and rules?

Democracy is as much about accountability as it is about voting. Because without accountability, you don’t get voting. It eventually goes away. And the only way to hold an *institution* accountable is if its members are, first, identifiable. Being able to identify individuals is just the first step to accountability—but no steps follow without it.

There is a chance this ordinance does not pass Tuesday night. This would mean Hartford tried to take the first step toward securing democracy, and faltered. By golly are the boots in the halls. 

It’s been a great pleasure to serve you this last year-plus on the board. A copy of the amended ordinance follows. It’s scheduled for discussion around 9pm at town hall. If you’re not able to attend, I hope you’ll write in support of it, to selectboard@hartford-vt.org.

~~

Ordinance Against Anonymity of Law Enforcement When Working In Their Official Capacity

WHEREAS, due to the increasingly-common practice of federal immigration officials concealing their identities from the public, including those they are apprehending, while working in their official capacity,

And WHEREAS, due to the soon-to-be-felt influx of federal funding for said immigration agencies,

And WHEREAS, the accountability of law enforcement officials is a bedrock of democracy, and this accountability hinges completely on law enforcement officials’ being identifiable while acting in their official capacities,

The following Ordinance is proposed:

As of the enacting of this ordinance, the Town of Hartford, Vermont requires all law enforcement operating within town limits, from any jurisdiction local state or federal, to leave their faces uncovered when acting in their official capacity, and, to provide their first and last names and badge numbers when asked by any member of the public, including those they may be apprehending, and/or any member of Town staff, and requires that law enforcement personnel allow for whomever is asking to record the identification information for their own future reference.

The only exceptions to the provision on face coverings shall be when there is inclement weather to protect from frostbite, or a strong suspicion of the presence of a communicable disease, or as otherwise addressed during a future epidemic/pandemic by a Police Chief, Town Manager, or Selectboard.

The only exception to both provisions (face covering and disclosure of one’s name) is if the member of law enforcement is working on an undercover assignment given to them by their superior(s) that could only be conducted via the use of an undercover officer.

This ordinance, when passed, is to be communicated to all local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.

What town depts will cut back (and by how much)?

/ paladin1787 / Leave a comment

It’s budget-creating season at Hartford town hall! Budgets that department heads submitted to the town manager, who altered slightly and submitted to us on the selectboard, were ideal budgets that would have resulted in an 11% overall budget increase. We couldn’t have that, so we asked the department heads to make cuts. The cuts that came from that effort paint a picture of the priorities of the folks who prepared this budget. What efforts by the town are being asked to sacrifice the most, or the least? Are they your priorities? Let’s find out!

I broke down the cuts presented to the board this week into percentages of the overall department expenditure these cuts would come out of. I say department “expenditure” and not “budget” because I have also attempted to factor in revenues that departments produce on their own. So the percentage cuts I list below (that is, PROPOSED percentage cuts) for each department more closely reflect what taxpayers are paying to fund that department—not just the budget of the department.

As you’ll see below, I found the Department of Public Works is bearing the brunt of the cuts with 17%. The IT department and Parks and Rec follow. Granted, a good chunk of DPW’s cuts is due to moving a large truck purchase from its budget into a proposal for using funds Hartford has collected over the years in a “local option tax” (LOT) account. (The proposal on the table, which will go to voters, is for some of this to fund vehicles for PD, FD, DPW, and Parks.)

If we remove LOT-funded vehicles from the equation, DPW would be asked to cut in the neighborhood of 11% while police would be cutting 0% (since its cuts would be entirely covered by the LOT). This 11% cut would largely come from the paving budget. I work with paving contractors like BlakTop often in my day job; they are ready to take Hartford’s contracts, should we budget for them.

But let’s talk just straight percentages, i.e., not disregarding vehicles to be funded with LOT. Parks and Rec would face a 9.46% cut compared to the PD’s 2.28%. Planning and zoning, the driving force behind the 300+ housing units built here in the last year, would face a 3.68% cut.

I will say that whenever election season rolls around, voters seem to shout from the rooftops that they want us to focus on the physical infrastructure of the town. As you may know, DPW oversees that. Many of these voters might like to see the police budget cut before DPW’s. I would count myself among them.

Here are the data for the cuts. I show my work for it on my website, brandonsmith.com. As always, this has been my personal opinion; I’m not speaking for the town or the board as a whole.

– Boards and commissions: 14.25% cut (relatively small budget)

– Town Manager’s Office: 28.37% cut, primarily due to the exclusion of funding a new facilities manager position next year

– Town Clerk: 1.53% of its cost as a proposed cut. That said, most of this department’s work we are obligated by state law to fund.

– Financial management: 0.43% cut (relatively small budget)

– Assessor’s office: 1.29% cut (relatively small budget)

– IT Department: 15.61% cut

– Police Department: 2.28% cut (100% of which would be restored if voters approve spending local option tax proceeds on vehicles)

– Fire Department: 5.27% cut

– Department of Public Works: 17.70% cut

– Community Health: 60.48% cut. (This seems to be because we are spreading out the cost to town funds outside the general fund, not because we are eliminating the position.)

– General Appropriated Services: 74.60% of its cost as a proposed cut. This is due to our assumption that, until we receive petitions, we are not funding Advance Transit (to whom we grant ~$98K/yr), nor Hartford Historical Society (to whom we grant ~$10K/yr). In my opinion we should assume both these worthy organizations will receive enough petitions to restore their funding, and plan for these expenses.

– Parks and Recreation: 9.46% cut

– Planning and zoning: 3.68% cut (relatively small budget)

—

Showing the work below. Please pardon the formatting, which isn’t entirely consistent throughout; it was more of a “note pad” for me, but hopefully still legible as a way to check my data.

  • Boards and commissions (Dept 115): $7,876.83 out of $55,276, or 14.25% of its cost as a proposed cut.
  • Town Manager’s Office (Dept 121): $210,547.28 out of $742,047.64, or 28.37% of its cost as a proposed cut, primarily due to the exclusion of funding a new facilities manager position next year.
  • Town Clerk (Two budget departments): $1,100 plus $2,750 (subtotal $3850) out of budgets that have $26,671.00 plus $340,782.41, (subtotal $367,453.41 offset by $98,000 of fees and $17,700 of permits and licenses is $251,753.41 it costs us to run the department), or 1.53% of its cost as a proposed cut. That said, most of this department’s work we are obligated by state law to fund.
  • Financial management (Dept 171): $2,000 out of ($476,633.02 minus $8,627 in fees collected is $468,006.02 cost to run the department), or 0.43% of its cost as a proposed cut.
  • Assessor’s office (Dept 174): $3,950 out of $307,008.00, or 1.29% of its cost as a proposed cut.
  • IT (Dept 181): $78,707.48 out of $504,073.50, or 15.61% of its cost as a proposed cut.
  • Police Department (Dept 211): $95,000 out of $4,298,641.34, minus revenues of 110,000; 5,000; 6,500; 5,500; 9,000; 1,000, with a subtotal of $4,161,641 cost of the department, means 2.28% of PD’s cost to taxpayers as a proposed cut.
  • Fire Department (Dept 221): $114,001 plus $114,494 that they’re declining to transfer to reserve accounts for future truck needs (subtotal $228,495) out of ($5,270,175.26 minus revenues of 40,000, 100, 160,000, 2,000, 700,000, 35,000, 50 for a cost to run the FD of $4,333,025.26), or 5.27% of the cost to run the FD as a proposed cut.
  • Department of Public Works (Many budget departments): $300,000 plus $50,000 plus $280,000 (Subtotal $630,000 of cuts) out of budget departments with budgets of $1,671,576.85; $879,501.96; $78,000; $52,000; $22,500; $591,000, and $264,043.68. (Subtotal DPW budget of $3,558,622.49, with negligible revenues.) That’s 17.70% of DPW’s cost as a proposed cut.
  • Community Health (Dept 412): $51,977 out of $85,947, or 60.48% of its cost as a proposed cut. (This seems to be because we are spreading out the cost to other funds, not because we are eliminating the position.)
  • General Appropriated Services (Dept 425): $108,096 out of $144,896, or 74.60% of its cost as a proposed cut.. This is due to our assumption, until we receive petitions for this funding, that we are not funding Advance Transit (to whom we grant about $98K/yr every year), nor Hartford Historical Society (to whom we grant about $10K/yr every year). In my opinion we should assume both these worthy organizations will receive enough petitions to restore their funding, and plan for these expenses, rather than assume they won’t receive enough signatures.
  • Parks and Recreation (Many budget departments): $40,040.63 plus 2,421.03 plus 111.40 plus 75,000 plus 27,000 (subtotal proposed cuts $144,573.06), cut from budgets of $368,538.56 plus 125,684.03 plus 508,979.34 plus 7,962.50 plus 63,275 plus 400,823.82 plus 13,800 plus 104,352.56 plus 100,520.00 plus 371,565.83 plus 28,938.07. (Subtotal parks & rec budget $2,094,439.71, less revenues of 35,000; 2,000; 275,000; 15,000; 10,500; 75,000; 105,000; 25,000; 500; 7,000; 14,000; 2,000, totals cost to run parks & rec of $1,528,439.) That’s 9.46% of Parks & Rec’s cost as a proposed cut.
  • Planning and zoning (Many budget departments): $11,065 plus $7,500 (subtotal $18,565) out of budgets of 511,782 plus 15,500 plus 500 plus 8,265 (subtotal $536,047, less revenues of 17,000; 2,000; 10,000; 1,200; 890, totaling cost to run dept of $504,957), or 3.68% of planning & zoning’s cost as a proposed cut.

*This doesn’t account for cuts that will become proposals to voters to approve spending money we’ve been collecting from the local option tax. This may or may not get approved by voters, but at any rate, all large departments have asks in there so trying to factor this in helps less when trying to compare departments.
**Some departments have negligible extraneous budget departments they oversee. I generally didn’t include these in calculations.

Remarks about the upcoming Gaza ceasefire resolution vote

/ paladin1787 / Leave a comment

“The most revolutionary act is a clear view of the world as it really is.” – Rosa Luxemburg

According to a UN report, half the people of Gaza are expected to face death and starvation by July, via the collapse of local agricultural systems and “extreme access constraints” on humanitarian aid.

(FYI, while I’m a selectboard member, I’m not speaking for the board or the town.)

Being anti-war only in hindsight is being pro-war. In 10 years, everyone will have always been against this. That’s what we saw with the Iraq war. But the problem is that everyone wasn’t always against it. A lot of people defended it in the public square. And now they get the benefit of the public having a short memory. This one won’t be like that. The public learned from Iraq. We are committed to remembering where people stood. Whether they were able to say “this is bad, full stop, no qualifiers, and I am willing to risk something to say it.”

What I’m doing now is what, in 20 years, I will have wanted to have done. I’m doing that which I won’t regret.

With all due respect, if you can’t make a simple statement saying that this is bad, “this” being something the UN says there’s a chance is genocide… then that’s decent proof you’re too concerned about what less-informed people think of you. (Or at least more-propagandized people.)

I keep coming back to “are those even votes you want?” Are you happy representing genocide deniers? I am happy to *offer education* in good faith to those with the tendency to deny what this is: collective punishment, and dozens and dozens of well-documented war crimes. But there’s a difference between speaking with those people—giving them your time and effort—and *seeking to represent* this particular view of theirs. In effect, this view is the dehumanization of some very poor, brown, humans. I don’t know about you, but I won’t represent ideas that some other humans don’t have the right to exist. These views simply don’t deserve to be represented.

If “every life is precious,” then why was killing 274 Palestinians this weekend acceptable to rescue four hostages who could have been released in a prisoner transfer, like Hamas has been proposing for months? If killing 60x civilians compared to the number of hostages rescued is acceptable, then what about the 9,112 Palestinians, effectively political prisoners, that Israel currently holds? These four hostages all say their treatment was good, and are in good health. Meanwhile reports about hostages held by Israel describe the worst methods of torture you can imagine. Are you starting to see how grossly the double standard, of humanity/inhumanity, is being applied in the media you’re consuming?

To my fellow board members: would the people saying it’s “not town business” even vote for you? It’s been shown that Biden’s recent lurches rightward, like with immigration policy etc, have not earned him any more would-be votes. I posit that the same thing happens here. If you cater to the most conservative voters, I believe that *generally*, you will not gain their votes. If they really liked you, they may tell you their opinion, but they’d say they trust your decision whatever it is. And that’s important: it’s your decision. You can’t deflect onto not having better polling or something. The town puts us here to make decisions based on what *we* see, and feel, and want. That’s the whole point of us.

Republican Chuck Hagel once got up in front of Congress and said something I agree with wholeheartedly. I’ve been having trouble finding the speech, but I’ll never forget it. In essence he said, I’m astounded how rarely anyone in this body stands for anything. I don’t even care if you stand for the opposite thing I stand for; just stand for something. Believe in something and act on it. Speak with a moral conviction, whatever it is. That’s what people really hear. But more importantly, that’s the only honest thing to say.

Some have said Gaza is “dividing the left.” I believe that, on the contrary, Gaza is *defining* the left. Are you on it? I would love for you to be.

It’s clear that most in Hartford care about antiracism. But is there a “Palestine exception” for that? I’ll share some wisdom from Yousef Munayyer on Twitter: “Violence to free Israelis, the vast majority of whom already enjoy freedom, is totally normalized. Violence to free Palestinians, the vast majority of whom are oppressed, occupied, and subjugated, is totally taboo. This is the height of racist supremacy.”

Lots of people have shared this “flash fiction” between two characters:

“We can disagree and still be friends.”
“Yes, about pizza toppings, not racism.”

From Twitter user @ihategender: “Too many aspiring allies think racial justice is about diversity, ‘inclusion,’ and multiculturalism. No, no, no, Sweetie. This is about overthrowing power that benefits you disproportionately, often exclusively. Are you ready to sacrifice access, entitlement, innocence?” How about votes? Connections? Clients? That said, do you really want connections to those people? Do you need those clients?

Have you noticed that when folks can’t seem to offer evidence to the contrary, or an actual argument with moral weight, then they default to a procedural point? Not that procedure isn’t important; rather, if someone else makes an argument with logical and moral weight, and all you can counter with is procedure or your opinion of procedure… then perhaps you should consider looking for a logical or moral argument with equal strength.

Fellow Hartford residents: The purpose of a system is what it does. When it comes to political systems, we should simply not believe the rhetoric, the stated intentions, the reasoning, the “I didn’t intend for this,” the equivocating. Because we can’t ever be sure about any of that. So we should only ever evaluate a system (like a government) based on what it gets done, and the consequences of what it gets done. What our federal government has been doing is ensuring that one of our client states can continue starving and maiming tens of thousands of civilians. What our local selectboard does, faced with this, is yet to be seen.

I’ll end with verse from T.S. Eliot:

Half of the harm that is done in this world
Is due to people who want to feel important.
They don’t mean to do harm—but the harm
     does not interest them.
Or they do not see it, or they justify it
Because they are absorbed in the endless
     struggle
To think well of themselves.

Feel free to email me to be added to my mailing list. Hey -at- brandonsmith -dot- com