This story was reported by Paul Heintz. Tyler Machado, Kevin J. Kelly and Andy Bromage
Vermont Democrats went wild as newly-elected State Treasurer Beth Pearce took to the stage late Tuesday night in a crowded ballroom at the Burlington Hilton.
As Pearce settled into her victory speech, the crowd went even wilder. But it wasn’t just for her. To the side of the stage, a television tuned to CNN was flashing some pretty big news. “I think I just heard that Obama won Ohio,” Pearce said. “Boy, I hope I got that right.”
She did.
This was a night of euphoria for Vermont Dems — up and down the ballot. Within minutes of the polls closing, the AP called it for their top officeholders: Gov. Peter Shumlin, Sen. Bernie Sanders (an independent who caucueses with Democrats) and Congressman Peter Welch. And Vermont once again sent Obama his first three votes in the Electoral College.
In the race Vermont Democrats focused on the most, Pearce handily defeated Rutland’s Republican city treasurer, Wendy Wilton, by a 52 to 41 percent margin.
But the biggest surprise of the night came when Burlington’s own Doug Hoffer (pictured above), a Democrat and Progressive, defeated 32-year Republican state Sen. Vince Illuzzi 51 to 45 to become Vermont’s next state auditor.
In a speech as low-key as his win was unexpected, Hoffer — a self-employed policy analyst running in his second race for state auditor — concluded by saying, simply, “I’m going to get to work.”
Throughout the night, speaker after speaker alluded to Democratic candidates’ victories over Republicans supported by Vermonters First, a conservative super PAC that emerged from the ether two months ago. Despite spending more than $814,000 on the race — most of which was donated by Burlington mega-donor Lenore Broughton — Vermonters First came up dry.
The group failed to elect either of the two statewide candidates it backed: Wilton and Illuzzi. It failed to increase the Republican ranks in the legislature. And its last-minute bid to defeat a Burlington ballot measure also failed; Mayor Miro Weinberger’s “fiscal stability bond” won by a margin of 68 percent to 32 percent — exceeding the two-thirds margin required for passage.
Introducing Pearce, Secretary of Administration Jeb Spaulding said, “Tonight, we’re not here to celebrate the super PAC woman. We’re here to celebrate the super woman who beat the PAC.”
Though Shumlin’s win was expected, it was resounding. Despite barely engaging his opponent, Sen. Randy Brock (R-Franklin), and spending a third as much money, Shumlin won by a margin of 58 to 38.
Democratic Attorney General Bill Sorrell, who narrowly survived a Democratic primary challenge in August, cruised to an easy victory. He won 58 percent of the vote, while Republican businessman Jack McMullen, who lost two previous bids for the U.S. Senate, took 33 percent. Progressive Ed Stanak won just 5 percent of the vote.
Secretary of State Jim Condos, who did not face a major party challenger, beat Libery Union Party candidate Mal Herbert by a commanding margin of 78 to 13.
The sole concession speech of the night at the Burlington Hilton was that of Progressive and Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor Cassandra Gekas. Despite the Democratic wave, the public interest lobbyist won just 41 percent of the vote, compared with incumbent Republican Lt. Gov. Phil Scott’s 57 percent.
In Chittenden County’s crowded, 14-person race for six State Senate seats, incumbents appeared to rule the day.
Incumbent Democrats Tim Ashe (who also ran as a Progressive), Ginny Lyons, Sally Fox and Phil Baruth won seats — as did incumbent Republican Diane Snelling. Former House member David Zuckerman, who ran as a Progressive and Democrat, came in a strong fourth place — taking the seat of retiring Democratic Sen. Hinda Miller.
Republicans Get Routed
The Republican gathering at the Capitol Plaza hotel in Montpelier was a far more subdued affair. At times, the number of reporters outnumbered Republicans in the ballroom and the balloon-festooned stage remained conspiculously empty for hours after the polls closed.
House Minority Leader Don Turner (pictured below) finally took to the mic to announce that Republicans had picked up three House seats — two in Rutland and one in Fairfax — but conceded they had lost races in Essex, Williston and Shelburne they had hoped to win.
In introducing Turner, Vermont Republican Party Chairman Jack Lindley (pictured below) told the small crowd, “It’s gonna be a great night. Look for good things. Republicans are coming back.” But with each new set of results showing Republican candidates trailing Democrats, the night looked increasingly not great for the GOP.
Brock finally emerged at 10:30 p.m. — more than three hours after media exit polls called the race for Shumlin — to concede to the governor. Brock said he was not able to reach Shumlin by phone before conceding publicly but said he would be speaking with him soon and wished him success in his second term.
Calling his campaign for govenror “the best experience in my life,” Brock said he intends to remain active in public policy in Vermont — though he didn’t elaborate on what shape that might take.
“When we have campaigns in Vermont, they are often hard fought. They are difficult. They are contentious,” Brock said. “But this was a campaign in which we talked about issues and was a campaign in which the dialogue remained civil, as it should be.”
“Governor Shumlin will have my support,” Brock (pictured below) added, “as will all of you and all the people of the state of Vermont.”
The Republican’s sole victorioius statewide candidate — Lt. Gov. Phil Scott (video below) — gave an decidely un-celebratory speech, making a call for party unity and keeping storm victims in mind. He never mentioned his longshot, underfunded challenger, Progressive/Democrat Cass Gekas. but said later that he “didn’t take anything for granted” and “ran the campaign we wanted to run.”
Several down-ticket Republicans left the Capitol Plaza without addressing the crowd: treasurer candidate Wilton, auditor candidate Illuzzi and attorney general candidate McMullen. Wilton (pictured at left below, with WCAX reporter Jennifer Reading) downplayed the impact six-figure financial support from conservative super PAC Vermonters First had on her campaign. “I don’t think the super PACs really had that much impact,” she said, adding, “There’s one on each side, don’t forget.”
Illuzzi (pictured below) called Hoffer to concede around 11 p.m., interrupting a chat with reporters to deliver the news. “I did the best I could and it wasn’t good enough,” Illuzzi said. He attributed his defeat largely to the trickle-down impact of Vermonters voting for “Democrats on the national level.” Illuzzi said he’ll continue his job as Essex County state’s attorney and wouldn’t speculate about future political plans.
Bad Night for Progs in Burlington, Brighter Prospects Elsewhere
Three Progressive candidates were defeated in Burlington, their party’s birthplace, by wide margins in races for the state legislature and city council on Tuesday.
Gene Bergman, one of the two unsuccessful Prog candidates for the Vermont House, attributed his loss to an “Obama tsunami” in the Queen City. Bergman and his Progressive running mate Kit Andrews were routed in the two-seat Chittenden 6-3 district by Democrats Jill Krowinski, an incumbent, and Curt McCormack, a former Vermont House member from Rutland.
Results from the two Burlington wards that account for all but a sliver of the legislative district showed Krowinski with 1837 votes (36 percent), McCormack 1450 (29 percent), Bergman 940 (19 percent) and Andrews 838 (17 percent).
“I thought I would do much better,” admitted Bergman, a former city councilor. “The institutional advantage of the Democratic Party is tremendous.”
Bergman added that he was proud to have raised the issues of immigrants’ rights and civil rights, which, he said, the Democratic candidates had not mentioned.
In other respects, however, the Progressive pair offered little political contrast to the two liberal Democrats.
Alison Segar, a Progressive candidate for an open city council seat in Ward 1, was also beaten handily by a Democrat, Kevin Worden. Unofficial returns for the seat vacated by Democrat Ed Adrian showed Worden with 999 votes and Segar with 667.
The 75 or so Progs gathered at Magnolia’s Bistro in downtown Burlington did have a few causes for celebration. State Rep. Chris Pearson, running without opposition, was re-elected to one of the two seats in the Chittenden 6-4 district. Incumbent Democrat Kesha Ram was also re-elected in that Burlington district.
Progressive/Democrat David Zuckerman won one of Chittenden County’s six state senate seats. Incumbent Democrat/Progressive Tim Ashe also won another two years in the state Senate.
Zuckerman all but declared victory in a speech at Magnolia at about 9 p.m. on Tuesday. “We’re going down to Montpelier and shaking it up,” Zuckerman said to cheers. “John Campbell [the state senate’s top Democrat] is going to have some answering to do.”
Campbell had not been supportive of Zuckerman’s bid, even though the former seven-term Vermont House member finished fourth among six Democratic winners in the party’s Chittenden County state Senate primary. Tellingly, Zuckerman spent the first two hours of watching returns at Magnolia’s rather than at the Hilton, where the Democrats were partying on Tuesday night.
Democratic/Progressive candidate Doug Hoffer also spoke briefly at the Prog celebration, telling those attendance, “This is my family.”
Progressive/Democrat Anthony Pollina’s expected re-election to a Washington County state Senate seat enabled Prog Party chairwoman Martha Abbott to put a happy face on the results, predicing that her comrades will control 10 percent of the upper chamber’s 30 seats.
Ward 2 Progressive city councilor Max Tracy was also celebrating what appered to be overwhelming support for an advisory ballot item calling for legalization of marijuana and hemp. Tracy had been the sponsor of that initiative in the city council. He said the next step will be to take the Burlington referendum results to Montpelier and press state lawmakers to pass pot decriminalization legislation.
But it was a mostly downbeat election for the Burlington Progs, with Pearson calling Bergman’s and Andrews’ defeats “heartbreaking.” He added, “We’re asking people to pay attention in a way they don’t want to. It’s very, very hard.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
How does Zuckerman get elected… an admitted thief and crook the people of Chittenden County vote him back in to pilfer a little more tax payer money. At least Kiss wasn’t elected so there is a gauge of exactly how much you can get away with and still be elected.
All that money down the drain. You really can’t buy happiness, at least not if you’re a republican in Vermont.
please explain your comment that Senator Zuckerman is an admitted thief and crook and that the people of Chittenden County vote him back in to pilfer a little more tax payer money.
He admitted that as a member of the House he put in for per diem allowances and travel money that he didn’t actually qualify for. The per diems are for Legislators who live too far away from Montpelier to commute back and forth every day to their homes. He said that his House salaray was so low that he felt he should take the per diem allowances even though he did commute between Burlington and Montpelier every day.
There is something inherently annoying about Progressives complaining about losing to Democrats. It’s as if Burlington Democrats are staunch conservatives.
I remember that. It was legal though, right? Glad folks are focusing on the large-scale fiscal problems of per diem allowances, though. It’s sure to bust our budget next year!
I don’t know if it was “legal” or not. But it’s cheating. So I guess it’s ok to be a cheat in Vermont, as long as you’re on the Left.
I will try to clarify.
1) All legislators put in standard paperwork (no matter how far they live from the statehouse) that indicates how far from the Statehouse they live.
2) Each pay period legislators are asked to fill in whether one stayed overnight or not. There is no way to indicate whether one walks, bikes, carpools, drives alone, takes a bus, sleeps in a rented apt., or sleeps in a hotel room. The rate for the allowances are the same for everyone, standard figures for mileage (federally set) or about $100 per night (if sleeping there).
3) Staff then allocates an allowance to each legislator based on that information. There is no adjustment up or down based on which methods one uses whether expensive or frugal, whether environmental (small car, carpool, or bus) or not (Humvee, solo vehicle guzzler etc. etc.)
4) The discussion ensued a few years back when the legislature was going to cut the pay (salary) by 5%, while keeping the per-dium allowances unchanged. There are legislators who are given $13,000 per-dium allowances and others who only get a couple of thousand. So the pay cut (to the approx. $10,000 salary everyone gets) was not affecting legislators equally.
5) That year (and it was typical) I was the 4th lowest “allowanced” legislator in Chittenden County and I was the 27th lowest in the State (out of 180.)
The quote that jcarter1 and others will forever take from the article was “I probably should not have” (or something like that I did not re-look it up). My intention in that comment at the time was that it could well be used against me politically even if it was perfectly within the system of allowances. And it has by a select few. If it had actually been criminal or even unseemly, there would have been far more inquiries, stories, and coverage.
I plan to introduce legislation that simplifies the allowances to fixed rates based on categories of distance from the statehouse and whether one rents or not. It will probably not go anywhere.
But the other reality is that the system in place costs taxpayers far less than if the 180 legislators actually kept receipts and turned them in for reimbursements because the staff time to calculate it all would be more expensive than any money saved.
I was pleased that some people asked me about this directly during the campaign as it was of concern to some. But upon understanding that I did exactly what I was supposed to do, and the context of the disparity in pay vs. allowances, each person that asked me walked away supporting my candidacy with their concerns allayed. I am pleased that in Vermont, if someone wants to actually understand what a policy maker is doing or why, they can actually ask us directly rather than just attack without all of the information.
Holy Christ Zuckerman are you serious?
” “I probably should not have” (or something like that I did not re-look
it up). My intention in that comment at the time was that it could well
be used against me politically even if it was perfectly within the
system of allowances.”
A.) It wasn’t perfectly within the system allowances. You rode in someone else’s car and then claimed the mileage as your own. That is fraud, that is stealing and that is not allowed or even legal.
B.) if your quote was you shouldn’t have due to political reasons then you are even more unfit to be a legislator then I originally thought. You deliberately took money you were NOT entitled to and you probably shouldn’t have for “political” reasons??? How about some ethical and moral reasons? Maybe Campbell will just expel you anyways and do us a favor.
Definitely NOT legal. Routine and common place, but not legal. Fraud at best…
I have tried to explain how the law is written. your response A is completely wrong. There is a memo from the legislative council stating that. But if you want to keep perpetuating a lie, then so be it.
I could certainly rent an apartment (as many legislators do), stay down there every night and actually accrue many thousands more. The system has many problems, but it is also the simplest way to do it (which is why they created it that way.)
I am fine with folks disagreeing with me as to whether it is ethical, right, wrong, etc. But, if you think that it is wrong, then (as you probably want to do anyway) throw most everyone out, because the system is allowances…not reimbursements. Once you understand the difference between those words, then we can start to talk about how the system should be changed. But until that time, our conversation will probably not be productive.
Many people also think that legislators get insurance through being a legislator, we do not. There are a lot of miss-perceptions out there. You keep perpetuating one here. They simply ask for the distance that you live from the statehouse. They do not ask how you get there. I guess you think that when you give your kid an allowance (if you do, we do not) you tell them exactly what they have to buy instead of having them learn how to decide what is important or not (which they learn when they really want something, but have already spent their allowance). ALLOWANCE. Not REIMBURSEMENT.
Well Dave, maybe instead of trying to explain the law just point out the statute and let us read it for ourselves. That would be a relatively easy way then you could point the specific parts that say you can get paid for mileage you didn’t use or for housing you didn’t use. For now I will quote Andy Bromage’s article from two years ago
“In January, they simply fill out a form indicating what they expect
to spend and then collect biweekly “per diem†checks based on their
claims. It’s an honor system. If their circumstances change,
legislators are supposed to file a “change†form adjusting their costs
up or down.”
You will note that if circumstances (such as not actually driving) change then you return the money. You don’t get to just keep money, it is not an ENTITLEMENT. It is an allowance, you can use UP TO THIS MUCH, if you use less it is not yours and you do not get to keep it.
Also you may note you write down what you expect TO SPEND, not how many miles you sit your ass in the passengers seat. Who in their right mind honestly deep down believes you get mileage for riding in someone else’s car? Do you know what mileage even represents Dave? Gas and upkeep chief, not hours spend in a car seat. And it’s clear you know that
“He bills taxpayers for his “mileage†to and from the Statehouse — as much as $152 a week — even on days when he gets a ride with fellow lawmakers or lobbyists”
“The 38-year-old farmer justifies collecting more for mileage and food than he actually spends by considering it as part of his overall
compensation.”
I just wonder if your sure enough about your interpretation that you are willing to stand up in court and tell the judge that it doesn’t matter if you drive or not, it’s part of your compensation package.
Again, I await the particular statute that deals with this and will be more then happy to acknowledge my mistake AND apologize to you if it indeed states you are entitled to that money regardless of whether you use it or not.
I am curious though, why do some of your collegues give the money back if it isn’t used if it is in fact part of the overall compensation package.
I will ask Andy to clarify as I believe he received a memo (after the article) from the legislative council that clarified it. I will also look to find the statute…but at the moment I am trying to pack to leave town to go to my mothers residence in Virginia to haul in last years firewood stacks and cut new wood for next year.
The changes we are supposed to report (and I did) was not whether or not we individually drove, but whether there were nights that we stayed over instead of commuting. That would change the allowance from the mileage distance to the overnight $108 (+/-… I am not sure what it is now).
The whole system was set up when Douglas (and many others) were in the House. That is partly why he also did not think the article and issues were a big deal. He understood how it was set up. There are many reasons they went to this system. 1) it was far simpler to administer than collecting everyone’s receipts, and therefore saved taxpayers money, And 2) it was a way to have the total compensation for legislators go up, without their needing to vote for pay increases (which are always met with opposition from some in the public). The per-dium allowances are set by federal stipulations (x per mile, Y per night) and that goes up (or down…but generally up over time as gas prices and property values go up) so that legislators would garner more total compensation without having to vote on it.
I will try to get a copy of the memo from Andy or legislative council when I return (Tuesday).
For those of you playing along at home, it’s also worth noting that in the very same article Jamie and David are quoting (http://www.7dvt.com/2010vermon…, Randy Brock and Vince Illuzzi both confess to pocketing allowance money they didn’t spend. lluzzi crashed with his parents and paid their heating bill with his $101/night allowance while Brock pocketed about $41/day of his meal allowance. So, according to what Jamie says below, Brock and Illuzzi also exhibited routine illegal behavior that is fraudulent at best.
Three (or more) wrongs don’t make a right.
Zuckerman took the money because he believes he doesn’t earn enough money. He chose to be a farmer and he chose to run for office. Don’t like what you get paid? Do something else.
I just saw this posting by Zuckerman on 7D’s blog entry about GMOs. Kinda funny, I think.
“These companies have no morals as to how far they will go to manipulate public opinion to protect their profits. They are not interested in protecting the farmers, they are in control of the seed and the chemicals and want to profit as much as possible.”
You are correct Illuzzi isn’t off the hook either. As for Brock, I believe the article quoted him as saying he gave the money back? If not, then yes he too is also guilty of fleecing the taxpayers.
I don’t care what party you are or if there is some technical mumbo jumbo that makes it “not illegal” per se, the fact is it is wrong, plain and simple. You do not take money for something you didn’t do. No public citizen would get away with it and our legislators are not above the law. It is just wrong, morally and ethically and as far as I can tell legally, but I will reserve outright judgement on that until I have a chance to read the actual state statute.