The following is a faithfully transcribed conversation between me and Democratic Ward Six city councilor Andy Montroll recorded at The Bagel Cafe and Deli in the Ethan Allen Shopping Center on North Avenue on February 1, 2009 between 11:00am and noon.  Andy Montroll is currently running for mayor of Burlington.

 

HB: OK.  Thank you Andy for joining me today.  Thanks for taking the time.

AM: Sure.  You’re welcome Haik.

 

HB: I know it’s a busy schedule, being a candidate for mayor.  How’s it going so far?  How’s the campaign going?

AM: It’s been going really well.  I’m really pleased with all the work that we’ve been doing and the outreach we’ve been doing- and more than that- the response we’ve been getting back from people all over the city.  I’ve been knocking on doors, hit doors in every ward of the city already.  It’s feeling really good while I’m out there.  I’ve been doing a lot of house parties.  Been doing different events.  Been calling people on the phone, talking to them.  Getting my message out.  It’s feeling really good.

 

HB: Excellent, excellent.  OK, I asked this of Dan and I’ll be fair and ask you too- Why do you want to be mayor?

AM: I’ve been in Burlington quite a while now.  I find it just an amazing city.  A really, really special city.  Been on the council for close to fifteen years, and doing lots of work advancing quality of life issues, Burlington Telecom issues, a number of different things.  What happens in the city is really important to me.  These last few years what I’ve seen happing in the city is this feeling like we’re just coasting.  Not really being proactive in any particular direction.  Just taking what might be coming along our way.  Especially in these tough economic times, you can’t just coast though it.  You can’t coast uphill.  We need to be a lot more proactive.  And what I want to do as mayor- I want to focus on economic development- job growth.  I want to focus on making sure we’re providing the basic city services and doing it at affordable prices.  I want to make sure that we have a transparent, responsive government.  One of the things I’ve heard, again- over these last few years- is more and more people are concerned that they don’t know what’s going on in city hall.  I want to make sure city hall is working for the people.  And finally, as I was saying before, Burlington is just a very unique, special place.  I have two kids in elementary school.  I want to make sure that it’s as livable, as vibrant as it can be today and in the future, for them when they get to be older and have their own kids.

 

 HB: This is an instant runoff voting election.  Do you have a second, third and fourth choice candidate?

AM: I don't.  I have a first choice candidate which is me.

 

HB: Will you be voting for your second and third choice?

AM: I don't know.

 

HB: What is going in from your perspective as far as the city's retirement fund?  Can you speak on that?

AM: I think the city's retirement fund is broken.  I think it's been broken for a while.  We've fixed some of the various pieces of it, but it's still a fundamentally flawed system. 

 

HB: In what way?

AM: It's fundamentally flawed because it is completely reliant on the stock market and tax payers.  If the stock market goes down, taxpayers have to pay more.  If the stock market goes up, taxpayers  pay less, but ultimately it's a system that's guaranteed by the taxpayers of Burlington.  Two years ago it was underfunded by about thirty million dollars and we were really worried about that.  Today, best as I can tell it's underfunded by about sixty million dollars.  So if we had to be worried two years ago, I'd say it's pretty close to a crisis mode right now, and it's at the point where I think- it's not good for the employees.  It's not good for the taxpayers.  It' not good for the employees because it's a fundamentally unsound system that- I don't know if it's going to be there for people ten, twenty, thirty years from now without massive funding by the tax payers.  It' not fair for the taxpayers because it's going to require major increases in taxes to really fully fund it.

 

HB: So what kind change would make it a better system?  Specifically?

AM: I think what we need to be moving towards is- right now it's essentially a pension plan where there's a guaranteed pension that employees get, after they retire.  What we need to be moving it towards is more like a 401K plan, where the city puts in a specific amount, every year, that then the employee handles.  You do that by phasing it in.  You do that by doing that, in my view, for  new employees, who aren't who aren't under the contract, who haven't been given the guarantee of saying 'here's what your pensions going to be.' You have to protect existing employees.  But start with the new employees who are coming to the city.  The ones who aren't yet employed and then you give the opportunity for those who are already here to transition onto a program like this.  And with the kind of turnover that we have in the city- you know it's estimated that we're going to have a pretty significant turnover in the next four, five, six years- and so doing a program like this- it doesn't fix it a hundred percent, but it starts moving it on the right track of where it needs to be.  And what you end up with then, is a stable, reliable, predictable system.  Right now it's completely unstable, completely unreliable and completely unpredictable.

 

HB: Staying on this issue of pensions...

AM: Sure!

 

HB: On January 13, 2008 the Burlington Free Press reported that “In September 2005, approximately two months before Keleher announced his retirement...” This is about the Brendan Keleher pension issue.  “...Clavelle asked the Board of Finance to allow Keleher to join the pension system, with pension credits retroactive to 1990. He also requested that his top financial officer be allowed to keep the payments the city had made over the years into his private plan. He made no mention of the interest those payments had earned.  Clavelle said in an explanatory memo to the board that allowing Keleher to keep the money from his private plan would compensate Keleher for years of underpayment. Clavelle also argued that allowing Keleher into the pension system would act as an inducement to keep Keleher on the job.”  Of course we all know that he quit two months after that.  Did you and the rest of the city council just get hoodwinked on that issue?

AM: Um...I don't think we got hoodwinked, per se, but we didn't know about it.  I mean I think it was as simple as that.  The notice of it that came in board of finance minutes didn't come until after he had actually retired, and the minutes that said it said something to the effect- and I went back afterwards when everyone said ' oh well you got it in the minutes'- it said something to the effect that  Brendan was on the city's retirement system, on the city's retirement plan, and he was able to keep his deferred compensation.  I'm not sure if anyone without knowing the details behind it would have really understood what it meant to say 'you get to keep deferred compensation.'

 

HB: Were you on the board of finance at that time?

AM: No.   And I think a lot of us would have just assumed that he was already on the pension plan so- As you're skimming through a board of finance minutes in a packet that's probably two inches thick, if you even read that piece of  it, I'm not sure anyone would have picked up. Frankly John Briggs who had it at the Free Press, had the same information we had the year earlier or two years earlier when it actually happened and it wasn't until somebody sat down and really explained it to him, what had happened, that he understood it.  But I think more to the point, whether we were hoodwinked, not hoodwinked- I just think you get one pension, I don't think someone should be allowed to get two pensions.  Whether it was right to let him go into the old pension plan, I'm not sure, but if that was the case he shouldn't have been able to keep the so-called deferred compensation.  If he kept the deferred compensation, he shouldn't have been moved into the retirement plan.

 

HB: But as a member of the city council, you did vote to let that happen....

AM: No we didn't.

 

HB: No?

AM: No.

 

HB: Oh, I guess I'm misunderstanding. Then.

AM: Yeah.

 

HB: But it must have gone to the full council after the board of finance, though?

AM: No.

 

HB: No?

AM: No.  It was something that's done through the finance board.  And what the finance board then did, I forget when it was that it happened, but Brendan then retired sometime in- I think it was early December- the middle of December that year, the minutes of the finance board were in our packet.  So we got minutes of the action that the finance board took.  By the time it came to us, Brendan was already gone.  The action had already been taken.

 

HB: So the full council didn't have to ratify the decision of the board of finance?

AM: No.

 

HB: OK... Let's see...[Shuffling list of questions]

AM: ...It would have been good if it was presented to us in a way so we knew what was going on, but no... It wasn't and we didn't.  It was solely an action of the board of finance.

 

HB: Did that set a bad precedent for  any future employee, who, like you were just talking about, decides to opt out of the pension system in favor of a 401K for example, and decides years later that he or she has been underpaid and now wants the pension as well.

AM: I don't think it sets a bad precedent because I don't think it's going to happen again.  It's not something that- I can't imagine anyone saying 'well since we let it happen in that instance, then of course we'll let it happen again.' It was a mistake to have it happen once, so it would be a mistake if it happened again, and hopefully that won't.  Certainly if I'm mayor it won't happen again.

 

HB: So would you say that was a mistake of Peter Clavelle and, or Brendan Keleher.  Would you go so far as to say they made a mistake?

AM: I think there was an error of judgment in letting him have two pensions.

 

HB: There was recently an advisory resolution that took  Burton to task for its controversial snowboards. 

AM: Yes.

 

HB:  I think there was an original resolution that wasn't advisory, it was actually meant to take some action...

AM: Yeah the original- I don't remember the exact details of it, but the original resolution was pretty harsh against Burton Snowboards.  I think it asked them- It might have even asked them 'don't sell those snowboards anymore' and to me that was a really anti-business resolution.  Burton is- they're in our city.  They're a good business in our city.  We want them.  We want ones like them in our city.  You  know we had a similar issue dealing with Al Jazeera on Burlington Telecom, and the position that we took then is city council shouldn't be involved in speech issues like that.  So the original resolution was I think really anti business and went to a place city council shouldn't go.  The amendments that we made to it though, were focusing it more on what what was  the issue at hand, which was 'let's look at issues around abuse' and things like that, and let's have a discussion about that and try and invite Burton to join in that one.   And that was much more pro-community.  But the original one I just thought was way over the top.

 

HB: But even with the amendments, is the issue really the city's business?  Should they be bothering with that type of thing when there are other...

AM: I think there are lots of times in the city where there are opportunities that come up, that you could use those opportunities to say 'let's have a discussion about it.'  I'll give an example.  My kids go to  Edmunds school.  Edmunds elementary school.  One of the crossing guards at Edmunds Elementary School, saw someone who has done child abuse.  A sexual predator with children.  And  let the school officials know, and it was kept quiet about it. Let the police know,  it was kept quiet about it.  And they were someone who was sort of in the general area of the school.  Didn't do anything but was just sort of around there.  Parents started to hear about it...

 

HB: Are we talking about Flynn?

AM: Edmunds.

 

HB: Edmunds!

AM: Edmunds.  Completely different.

 

HB: I think there was something similar going on over there [Flynn].

AM: Yeah there was somebody living down at Flynn.  This was one where there was somebody who was not living there but was...

 

HB: Hanging around?

AM: Sort of hanging around there, who really shouldn't be hanging around an elementary school.  Parents were getting really upset when they started hearing about it because- something's going on.  They don't know about it.  Something that could endanger their children.  And the PTO [Parent Teacher Organization] at the school had a big meeting.  I went to it.  The position I was talking there was 'use these times to have a discussion.' Somethings going on.  People need know what's happening.  Parents need to be aware that- whether someone's been seen hanging out at the school or not-  or near the school or not- parents need to be aware of the fact that it's not a hundred percent safe community.  You have to know where your kids are when they're walking back and forth from school.  You need people keeping an eye on them.  So use that as the opportunity for community discussion and that's where that moved to.  Same thing with the Burton.  You k now when you start having those kinds of discussions of the community, focus them and use it as an opportunity.

 

HB: Do you have any ideas about who you might tap to be your chief administrative officer?

AM: I have some ideas.

 

HB: Would you consider keeping Leopold?

AM: I would need to have a frank conversation with him to make sure we'd be able to work together.  I don't know.  I don't know.

 

HB: Do you have any names?

AM: None that I can share.

 

HB: OK.  Do you have any comments on what happened with Adam Cate?

AM: It was a debacle in my mind.  It was one where- as I understand it- and I'm not sure any of us really understand fully, what happened- which is kind of unusual to be on the city council and not really have all the full picture of the information, either now or at the time it was all unfolding- but my understanding was in early March last year, folks started going to the mayor talking about some of the issues that were going on at the boathouse and within the department, and nothing much happened until June when he launched this investigation that took about four or five months, where Adam Cate was being paid, while suspended and ultimately as you know the Parks and Rec commission let him keep his job with some nominal sanctions.

 

HB: And who was trying to fire him?  Was it Wayne Gross?  Or was Wayne Gross in favor of keeping him?  I'm fuzzy on the details.

AM: Yeah the details are really fuzzy.  All of these details are really fuzzy and I don't think anyone was well served by that process.  And looking forward from it, in some of the issues that I think were coming out from it is- They were doing bartering in the department, which I don't think you're allowed to do.  It's not clear that there [were] good accounting practices when cash is trading hands which you need to have because that protects both the employees and the employer- and the residents of Burlington.  You know I haven't heard anyone say that  money was stolen, at all.  But you do good accounting practices and you just make sure that's the case and so everyone can have confidence in the system.

 

HB: Are there any steps being taken to improve the accounting practices, at Parks and throughout the city?

AM: One of the things I asked of the mayor when they were giving us a briefing on this is 'hey we know what's happened in the past, but what lessons have been learned to look at the future?' And to me one of the lessons to be learned is we need to improve some of the accounting practices.  We need to improve the communications and a host of other things, but the answer we got back was 'things went pretty well. The investigations take a long time.' and everyone was satisfied with it.

 

 

HB: Do you think getting rid of cash altogether at the boathouse would be an option?

AM: Probably not.  Cash is legal tender.  It's one of the ways that people buy things and buy services, so I don't see that going away.

 

HB: Just better accounting?  It does seem like beyond the personnel issue, long term- it's more systemics and there should be just better systems in place.

AM: There need to be better systems.  You know a few years ago there were some problems- at some of the parking garages- that there were some concerns there.  I don't remember what the exact details were of what was done.  But I know some things were put in place to help make sure that doesn't happen again.

 

HB: Should the mayor have more flexibility in terms of hiring and firing? If he suspects somebody of wrongdoing, should it be easier for the mayor to just get rid of somebody?  I mean in any private business, most employment is at-will.  One could argue that maybe Adam Cate would have been fired without a lengthy investigation in a private business.  Do you think that kind of flexibility is something that a mayor should have?

AM: Very, very few public employers, public entities can hire people at-will because government has due process requirements on just about everything it does including the hiring and firing of employees. And dealing with our unions-  most of our employees are under union contracts and those specifically say how you have to deal with things.  I think having a fair process makes a lot of sense, you just have to work your way through it properly.  I don't think you have to be able to fire someone on the spot, but you need to be able to set up the expectations and go through the process and if they should be let go, they should be let go.

 

HB: How about Burlington Telecom?  Do you have any ideas for the future of Burlington Telecom?  Should Burlington Telecom be selling its capacity to other communities now that more or less the whole city has access to the service if they want it?  What do you think about that?

AM: Let me just start with I'm really proud of Burlington Telecom.  It was an initiative that I started working on about ten years ago in the basement at city hall soon after congress has changed the Telecom Act.  They changed it in 1996.  And they created an environment where telecom  was supposed to be all competitive.  The telecom industry was supposed to be competitive any yet is was monopolies here in Burlington and the future outlook was it would remain monopolies.  Monopoly in a competitive environment doesn't work really well.  So we sat down and came up with the framework for creating Burlington Telecom and I think it's a great service now that we have here in Burlington.  It covers about ninety percent or so of the city.  It doesn't cover all the neighborhoods.  We need to get it out into all all of the neighborhoods.  I think that's really important for every home in the city to make it available.  It doesn't cover the downtown.  The core of the downtown.  And it needs to cover the core of the downtown.  It's a great economic development tool.  We have down on Pine Street.  If you know Dealer dot com?  There are two main reasons Dealer dot com is there.  They were across the street in the Maltex building.  They needed to expand dramatically.  They found space, because one company went out of business, and so they were able to move in there.  But more important for them, they needed the internet access that Burlington Telecom was able to provide.  We need to be able to provide that to businesses in our downtown as well.  So we need to make sure we get the coverage in the downtown.  And on the issue of going outside the city- it's been a missed opportunity, over this last year, that we haven't been working on that.  It was about a year ago, or a little bit over a year ago- I put in a couple resolutions to start the process of taking to the communities outside of Burlington to provide services to them.  I think it's an amazing opportunity for us in Burlington to be doing that.  We have tremendous capacity of Burlington Telecom.  It's wasted capacity right now by not reaching out to the other communities.  You could have a real win-win situation if you do reach out to them because they'll get better services, cheaper services and we in Burlington will bring in extra revenues.  Probably bring in a million dollars or more by bringing services to outlying communities.

 

HB: In a year?

AM: In...?

 

HB: In a year?  A million dollars in a year?

AM: It would be at least a million a year that you could bring in once you've reached out and once you've started providing services.  It won't be in a year from now.

 

HB: Right.

AM: But yeah.  There's quite a bit of revenues that can be brought in.

 

HB: Do you agree with the decision to keep Al Jazeera English as part of the channel lineup or would you have allowed Chris Burns to get rid of it?  And also- isn't it impossible to get  politics out of Burlington Telecom since it's a city department and ultimately owned by the people of Burlington?

AM: I'm going to do something that you're not supposed to say or do, but I'm not going to answer your question on whether it should be, whether the service should be there or not.  I'm going to talk around that question.  And the reason I am is it's exactly what you were just asking about.  The politics of it.  The city council.  An elected body has absolutely no business whatsoever telling people what they're allowed to watch on TV and what they're not allowed to watch on TV.  I think though, that there needs to be a better process in place for making those kinds of decisions because almost every other decision in the city- can ultimately fall back to the mayor and to the city council if people aren't satisfied with it.  This is one place I don't think that's the case.  It's something that we talked about early on when we were creating Burlington Telecom.  That was one of the concerns that people had when we were creating Burlington Telecom.  'Do you mean that you city government, you the elected people are going to tell us what we get to watch?' That would be a disaster if we took even a step toward that direction.  But instead we need to set up a better process for determining how it's done.  First thing you need, you need a clear carriage policy.  And there's been a carriage policy but it's not one that- That is a place that the city council can adopt.  A generic carriage policy.  Generically what kind of programming and how the decisions are made.

 

HB: When Chris Burns decided to drop the channel initially, was he following the carriage policy?

AM: I'm not sure because I don't think that there was- either there was- I'm not sure if there was a clear policy and there were contract issues that were related to it.  Part of his decision was because there wasn't a contract with Al Jazeera.

 

HB:  Mmmm.  But those seemed to clear up pretty quickly once public input was taken and ...

AM: Yeah it did...

 

HB: ...and it seemed to be overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the channel..

AM: But then the other thing that you need- In the first instance it should be up to the general manager and the folks at Burlington Telecom to decide.  But then what you need is a review process, if people are unhappy with it.  And ultimately I think because it's a publicly owned system, it's a self-contained system-  ultimately I do think you could go out to the voters on questions like that.  I don't think the council should be deciding when the question goes on the ballot or not, but I think we should be able to set up a method where- right now it takes five percent of the voters to sign a petition to get something on the ballot...

 

HB: Right.  And there was going to be a referendum on that but they never got the signatures.

AM: But I think for something like that- because there's no role for the city council or the mayor in my opinion, I think we could give easier access  for the public to get a question on the ballot like that, so the public could decide for themselves whether they want a particular channel or not.

 

HB:  Mmmmm.  Yes, but then the majority is deciding for the minority in that case whereas if people  just have individual choice of, consumer choice...

AM: But you can still watch it.  You can still go on the internet and watch it.  There a couple other channels that still carry pieces of it.  You gotta figure out a way to make a decision that works for the most people as possible.

 

HB: So, um...

AM: But bottom line is- there's absolutely no role, for an elected body to decide what kind of programming you should be allowed to watch.

 

HB: Did you agree or disagree with the mayor's decision to ask that public input be taken after the initial decision that Chris Burns made to get rid of it [Al Jazeera English]?

AM: I think the method that he used, without giving clear lines on how the decision was going to be made was not the right way, and also, at one point in the middle of all that process he was saying that he was still going to be involved in- he was still going to be the one making the decision.  He finally backed away from that.  But that was wrong for him to be even implying that the mayor's office would be one who's making a decision over what programming people in Burlington get to watch.

 

HB: So had you been mayor at the time you would have just let Chris Burn's decision stand?

AM: What I would have done is set up, and what we do need to do is set up a much better process for how those-  how the review process  goes on that, because throughout the city everything we do there's a review process.  This is just a place where the ultimate review can't be done by the city council or by the mayor.

 

HB: What are some of your proudest accomplishments while on the city council?

AM: Some of the proudest accomplishments that I've had- since my early days on the council I have championed the quality of life issues.  There were neighborhoods that were under lots of stress when I first got on the council.  We didn't have a noise ordinance.  We didn't have a code enforcement office.  There were a whole variety- our minimum housing codes were difficult to enforce.  Those were all things that I made as a priority.  We have a noise ordinance that's been working.  We have a code enforcement office.  Our minimum housing codes and the way we implement them are vastly better than what they were.  I'm really proud of the work I did with that.  Burlington Telecom was an initiative that I played a key role in from the early days all the way though.  I'm really proud of that I think that's a great service that we have here in Burlington.  I've been really, really proud of- there where times when the council has just gotten stuck, on things, and I've been able help move the council beyond that stuckness.  Just a couple examples of that- after nine-eleven, the council was trying to do a resolution to deal with the tragedy that happened, to make a statement about it, and the council was split almost down the middle.  One group wanted to do a resolution to say how bad it was, and that 'we need to follow exactly what president Bush was telling us to do.'  And the other half was saying this was a tragedy and 'we condemn what president Bush had done leading up to it.'  It was going nowhere fast and I stepped in the middle of it, came up with the resolution that really advanced it and brought it back to saying, you know- this again- is a place where terrible tragedy, but bring it back to our community,  'what do we do?  How do we respond to things like this?'  There have been other times when there have  been equally divisive resolutions that have come, or actions that have come, where I've been able to advance them.  Really proud of the work I'm able to do on things like that.

 

HB: Last year there was a controversy when Ben Pacy broke into the Ward Seven ballot box in order to reconcile some inconsistent vote totals.  Broke into it three times.  Did you agree with Jean O'Sullivan's decision to sue over that?

AM: My big concern, after we found out that he had gone into the ballot boxes three times- We asked the question- I think I asked the question on the floor of the council- I said- and I asked the CAO [Chief Administrative Officer], I asked our attorney 'was it legal for him to do that?'  And the answer was 'well, it wasn't a good practice for him to do it, but yeah it was legal to do it.'  It wasn't legal for him to open it up and there was a huge concern that if the city was taking the official position that 'yes, you're allowed to open up sealed ballot boxes behind closed doors,' that's a terrible direction for the city to be going in.  Whether it needed to be resolved in the court system, or whether there's another way- that was her [O'Sullivan's] businesses doing it that way, but the action that the city took of opening up  ballot boxes, and then justifying it, was an absolutely bad decision to make.  And saying it was a legal thing to do was an absolutely bad position to take.

 

HB: Well, in light of that position by the city attorney's office, were you in favor of what Jean O'Sullivan did?

AM: I think in the outcome of what she did, the judge didn't put any sanctions on, but the judge said it's illegal to open up sealed ballot boxes, so the end result was, we have clarity.  I guess at the end result if we're not getting the clarity from the city attorney's office, that's a way to get it.  I think there could have been other ways to get clarity as well, but that's certainly a way to get clarity on what the law is when we weren't following the law.

 

HB: In his decision, the judge in that case made mention of the fact that Pacy was unprepared for those responsibilities...Has the council taken any actions to try to strengthen training or anything like that?

AM: One of the resolutions that I cosponsored was- again what I generally do if you see that there's been a problem- OK you have to deal with the problem, but often times the more important thing is- 'what do you learn from that problem and how do you move forward from it?'  And what we did- I cosponsored a resolution that required all our election officials to go through a training process, a much more vigorous training process to be ready for the next election.  It will help.  We still had problems in the next two elections in the primary and then in the November election.

 

HB: They seem to be of diminishing severity, but there are problems every time.

AM: It's vastly important that our election officials be properly trained, and again, just going back to the concept that you could justify opening up a ballot box- you just can't. 

 

HB: Right.

AM: And the idea that anyone would think that you can...

 

HB: I mean anyone in that position, especially...

AM: I mean you were- I don't know if you ever had a chance to count ballots while you were...

 

HB: No, I never had the chance to do a recount, but I understand that it's a sacred process.

AM: It's an absolutely sacred process.  Once those boxes are sealed, it's so limited how you could open them up.

 

HB: Another interesting aspect of that case was Jonathon Leopold's testimony in it.  He said that from his standpoint his job would be easier if no party held a majority on the city council.  Was it proper for the person in charge, ultimately, of the vote counts and of running the elections in Burlington, to express a preference, even in general terms like that, for how elections turn out?

AM: No.  I don’t think he should be involved in the politics of it at all, on a whole variety of levels.  I don’t think he should be involved in a sense of the reason that you’re talking about because he’s our chief elections official.  But more important, ultimately one of the roles of the chief administrative officer is to be staff to the city council.  He’s our primary staff person, and for your staff person to be saying ‘I’m going to work against this person or work against that person’ to try and…

 

HB: Did he say that about a specific candidate?  Because all I remember from his testimony was he just said generally it makes his job easier if no one party has a majority- which I thought was odd, since he works for a Progressive mayor…  

AM: He works for a Progressive mayor and…

 

HB: One might imagine that his job would be easier if there was a Progressive majority, theoretically anyway.
AM: …And it shouldn’t be…

 

HB: He shouldn’t be talking about it.

AM: He shouldn’t be any of his concern what the makeup of the council is.

 

HB: At least not- he shouldn’t be enunciating it anyway…

AM: I should say it should be any of his concern as the chief administrative officer.  In private how any individual wants to do it, totally their business.

 

HB: Did Jonathon Leopold work to elect Karen Paul that you know of?

AM: I don’t know. I don’t know.

 

HB: Any thoughts on the Moran redevelopment?  I’ll tell you I’m in favor of keeping the building myself.  I think it’s a beautiful landmark.  I personally would like to see a children’s museum and I just want to see the building refurbished.  Some people have doubts about whether it’s the best thing to do down there.  And some people have doubts about whether or not the projects as they’re proposed can succeed.  What do you say to those people?

AM: The projects as originally proposed I supported.  I still support them as originally proposed.  As you say, I think having the children’s museum down there could be a nice compliment to ECHO [Ecology, Culture, History and Opportunity Center].  With our kids we go down to ECHO a bit.  It would be nice to have a couple of places to take them to as we go down to the waterfront there.  We enjoy it down there a lot.  The sailing center I think- they’re already there, we want to keep them there.  It’s a great asset in our community.  It’s a great recreational component down at the waterfront.  Ice Factor- They’ve never completely excited me to have an ice climbing wall there.  On the other hand, what they’ve said they would do is pay the bulk of the cost to do the refurbishing to get their facility in and this whole project would be done without cost to the taxpayers.  That’s fine.  To have a building refurbished and have it be useful.  It may not be exactly all three uses that I want, but a lot of people like it.  I think that could be great.  What I don’t support is if it turns out that the taxpayers are the ones who need to pay to get this done.  I think there are a lot better uses for our tax dollars than to build an ice climbing wall or an ice climbing facility.  And I have real concerns about just how this project is proceeding.  Last March the city, the Ice Factor, and the other partners in it came with a package that said ‘this is what we want to do.’  Pretty clear on what they said they wanted to do.  The city then was taking that and putting together just basic memorandums of understanding.  I’m quoting that one.  ‘Memorandums of understanding’ that were designed pretty much to say, we’re going to move forward to do the full development agreements under the terms that we said we would already do.  It was a horrific experience going through that.  It took forever to get those deals done.  Just these non-binding memorandums of understanding that what was coming back to us were just not very good explanations of what was going to happen.  Not very good documentation.  And if it was that hard to get a simple component of this done, I can’t imagine- and we’ve seen nothing since then, over how the finance is going, over how the full-blown development agreements are going, how the lease agreements are going- so there are a lot of components that are still hanging out there that we’ve got no feedback on, we’ve got no information on.  And at this point I’m not real convinced that Ice Factor is moving forward that hard with it.  The mayor may have a different perspective, but if that the case it hasn’t shared it with us, but if they’re not going to be paying to do what they said they were going to do and if they’re expecting the city to do that, that’s where I would be backing down from my support of it.   

 

HB: What would you like to see happen with the North Forty and the with the Waterfront in general?  Some people would like to see it just landscaped into a nice park, other people would like to see full-blown development there.  Any thoughts?

AM: Yeah.  Mine is probably somewhere in the middle but it doesn’t begin and end with the North Forty.  It really does look at the whole waterfront.  We had a resolution on the table at our last meeting that was predominately focusing on the North Forty saying ‘let’s start coming up with development ideas for the North Forty.’  I think you really need to look at it more in the context of the waterfront as a whole and not just focus on one particular area.  And how the waterfront connects to the downtown, how you draw people from one to the other, back and forth.  To me the waterfront begins with- go there in the summer and you see people sitting down on the rocks, just looking out- very peacefully looking out over the water, looking out over the mountains.  It’s almost like they have a do-not-disturb sign on their back.  You want to make sure you keep the waterfront as protective for that.  That people can just be there, relax, just almost meditate out there.  We have festivals out there that are really important for our community.  You want to make sure you could keep those.  People go down to play to have fun.  You want to make sure you could keep all of that.  Ancillary to all of that, to help support all of that- Yeah you could have different things- whether it’s some more housing that could be along there in the right places, whether there’s a place for a small hotel like Ray Pecor was proposing by the ferry docks a few years ago.   There could be some more commercial space down there.  There’s a variety of things.  But what you want to do is come up with a full plan, really engage the community to develop that, and be pretty specific over what you’re looking for.  And it’s a long-range plan.  It’s not the five year plan.  It’s not even a ten year plan.  You really want to be looking out for the long-term plan, what’s going to happen there.

 

HB: Speaking of access to the waterfront from downtown and the old north end- the idea that I’ve been pushing for a while now, and I’m bringing it up with everyone- is putting a set of stairs between Battery Park and the waterfront, somewhere near where the canon is- it would come down to just south of the new condos the way I envision it.  Ultimately I would like to see plateaus with benches, tiered stairways, maybe waterfalls, landscaping…

AM: You should be part of this process.  That sounds like a great idea.  Actually I haven’t heard you talking about that.

 

HB: Well, I’ve mentioned it on the blog a couple of times and I brought it up with Dan and Bob.  It’s just something I would like to see personally.  I think it would have a multiplier effect and make both parks more accessible to more people so each one would have value added by having that link between the two.

AM: But you know there are a lot of creative ideas out there.  That’s why I talk about making sure you reach out to the members of the community.  Because, that’s a great idea, and there are other ones that are out there also- some that we know about and some we may not know about.

 

HB: My other great idea is Burlington Telecom should offer pagers to go into the remote controls so that when you loose them in the cushions of your couch, you can beep them and find them that way. 

AM: [Laughter] Boy I agree with that one.

 

HB: I think that would be a huge selling point…

AM: [Laughter] Your kids hide them in there also?

 

HB: It’s frustrating.  It’s frustrating…

AM: Actually it’s not when it’s stuck in the couch that’s the problem.  It’s when it’s up in my kids’ room or when it’s somewhere else that you just have no idea where it is.

 

HB: Yeah well, I think a pager would help for that.  Let’s see… I think Burlington Telecom just stared accepting payments online.  When are we going to be able to pay traffic tickets online, or taxes, or pay the water bill or any of the other things the people pay the city for?  When is that going to be in one comprehensive place where you can just have a city account online and pay that way?

AM: We should be doing that as soon as we could.  It’s another one of those things we should be doing.  We’ve actually tried to get the water department and BED (Burlington Electric Department) to be able to consolidate their billing, just make it easier for people- you get one envelope, one thing to send back and that’s just been a real- I guess they do their billing and accounting so differently that that’s never been able to happen, but you probably can consolidate all the different kinds of payments online for people that want to do that, so it should be done.

 

HB: Any thoughts on transportation?  Do you support efforts to improve rail service to Burlington or have intercity rail someday perhaps where you could get on a train at the waterfront and go to New York City?

AM: Along the rail, talking about rail- I’m also on the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the MPO, and one of the items that keeps on coming up there, sort of in the background, but it keeps floating up is the so-called ‘western corridor.’  Western corridor is rail that would do pretty much what you were just talking about.  It comes from New York City up through Albany, cuts over to Rutland, and then Rutland up to Burlington.  So the Rutland to Burlington is the western corridor.  There’s been ongoing discussions, but the city has really not been involved in that.  I think it would be fabulous if we could get the western rail in place…

 

HB: It would be fabulous…

AM: Absolutely amazing… 

 

HB: It would be an economic driver for the inward traffic.  We’d have a lot more people coming up for the day or for a weekend..

AM: Yeah, plus we could go down to New York.  It would take six, seven hours door to door.  If you fly you could do it in a little bit less than that, but not much because you’ve got to be at the airport an hour ahead of time.  The airports not right downtown when you get to New York, if you get there on time.  I think the western corridor rail would just be a phenomenal thing for our city and I’ve spoken with them at the MPO about that and said ‘is the city being engaged in it? Are we involved in it?’ and I’ve spoken with the administration a few times and said ‘this is something we as a city need to be participating in.’ and the answer that keeps coming back from the MPO is ‘no the city’s really not involved in that at all’ but we need to be because I don’t know whether or not it will happen.  If the city gets involved in it, I don’t know whether it will actually happen- there are a lot of challenges to it- but I could guarantee you, if we’re not, it probably won’t happen.  So this is an area that there’s such tremendous benefits for our city, we should really be proactive on seeing what we could do to make it happen.

 

HB: So I think we’ve got a pretty good amount of material here.  I guess lastly I would just ask what would you says is the signature issue of your campaign?  What would you really want to do if you get elected?  And then if you have any final thoughts or anything else you want to say.

AM: I guess the signature issue for my campaign is really making sure that city government works for the people of Burlington.  So often I hear from folks who are frustrated that they’ll go to the planning office and get different responses to the same question, or that they don’t know what’s going on in the city, or that they’re frustrated over one piece or another.  I want to make sure city government works for the people of Burlington.  It’s responsive to them, they know what’s going on.  I think that’s really a place- back to basics.  That’s what we need to be doing.  And you asked another piece of the question I don’t remember...

 

HB: It was basically the same question worded two different ways.  What would you really want to do if you got elected and do you have any final thoughts?

AM:  Thanks for talking the time to do this interview.  It’s really great that you reached out.

 

HB: Thank you for agreeing to do it.

AM: I’ll close right where I started.  I’ve been out a lot, reaching out to members of the community as much as I can.  I think a mayor’s race is really about making personal connections with people.  People want to know who their mayor is.  They want to know what they mayor’s all about and doing things like this is a great way to help reach out so, thanks.

 

HB: Thank you.