* * * * Updated Below with Response from Mayor Bob Kiss * * * *
Newly reelected Burlington city councilor Ed Adrian (D-Ward 1) — never one to mince words — said Town Meeting Day results in the Queen City send a simple message: Mayor Bob Kiss needs to step down from office.
“I think it’s time for the mayor to step down,” Adrian said during a live interview on Channel 17.
The reason?
Adrian said the defeat of instant-runoff voting, combined with the city council losses of two Progressives, and the loss of a Democratic ally of the mayor send a clear message that voters have lost confidence in the city’s top elected official.
“I think the voters clearly sent a message for him to resign,” said Adrian. “It’s time for him to show some leadership and step aside.”
The mayor did not immediately return phone calls late Tuesday night.
Burlington voters rejected Instant-runoff voting by a 52 to 48 margin, with a substantial portion of the support to repeal IRV coming from the city’s two New North End wards (see details below). Everything else on the Burlington ballot was approved by at least a two-to-one margin.
Tuesday’s vote about IRV was largely seen as a referendum on Mayor Kiss and his handling of Burlington Telecom. If so, a 52-48 margin doesn’t seem to be the wide-scale rebuke. For certain, Wards 4 and 7 clearly sent a message to the mayor.
Other city councilors weren’t willing to go as far as Adrian in calling for the mayor to resign, but many agreed that the mayor needed to show more leadership.
“I think it’s not helpful for anyone to come out tonight and call for the mayor to resign,” said Republican Kurt Wright, who will rejoin the council. He defeated Ward 4 Democrat Russ Ellis by more than 300 votes.
“I think there has been a war of words between the mayor and the city council, and it has to stop,” said Wright. “Certainly it’s a rebuke, but it’s not time to call for him to resign.”
Wright said he hopes to bridge the gap between the mayor and the council when he returns to the council, and help the council provide some leadership — not just on Burlington Telecom, but on other issues facing the city, including economic development and the redevelopment of the Moran Plant.
City Council President Bill Keogh (D-Ward 5), who won reelection Tuesday night, also would not say whether he agreed with Adrian.
However, Keogh said, if he were the mayor here is how he would react to Tuesday’s votes: “I would say, ‘Hey, I’m in trouble. I’ve got to start listening to the public.'”
At bare minimum, Keogh said, Kiss needs to realize that voters want him to work with the council — not against it.
“He needs to start working with the council, and he has to start being more open with the council and the public,” said Keogh. “Will he resign? No. Should he resign? That’s something only the mayor can decide.”
The voting results presented the council with a challenge also: It may need to provide the leadership voters desire.
“It’s not generally the legislative branch that provides leadership, but the executive branch, but the mayor has failed in providing that leadership,” said Keogh.
Independent City Councilor Karen Paul (Ward 6) echoed Keogh’s sentiments.
“It’s our time to step up and provide leadership where it really counts,” said Paul.
When the new city council is seated in April, it will break largely along the same lines politically, with Republican gaining one seat from their current tally.
The new council will have seven Democrats, three Republicans, two Progressives and two independents. The current council has seven Democrats, two Republicans, two Progressives, and two independents. The Progressives had held one additional seat until December, when a councilor resigned because she moved out of her ward.
That councilor — Progressive Emma Mulvaney-Stanak — will return to the council from Ward 3. She ran unopposed. She joins fellow Ward 3 Progressive Marrisa Caldwell.
Progressives lost a seat in their longtime inner-city stronghold of Ward 2. Mulvaney-Stanak’s seat went to Democratic newcomer Bram Kranichfeld. Kranichfeld, who chairs the Burlington Electric Commission, is a deputy state’s attorney. He defeated Progressive Max Tracy by just 13 votes, 307-294.
Democratic incumbent David Berezniak (Ward 2) was reelected, defeating Progressive Jonathan Leavitt by a slim 10-vote margin, 302-292.
In Ward 1, Adrian easily won reelection against Progressive Miles Dougherty, 482-158.
In Ward 4, Republican Kurt Wright defeated incumbent Democrat Russ Ellis, 1087-717.
In Ward 5, Democrat Bill Keogh defeated Progressive Abby Russell, 778-509.
In Ward 6, Independent Karen Paul ran unopposed.
In Ward 7, Republican Paul Decelles defeated Democrat Greg Jenkins 911-515.
Instant-Runoff Voting
Here’s how the IRV vote broke down by ward:
Ward 1: 405 to keep, 264 to repeal
Ward 2: 428 to keep, 185 to repeal
Ward 3: 510 to keep, 292 to repeal
Ward 4: 1203 to repeal, 606 to keep
Ward 5: 793 to keep, 545 to repeal
Ward 6: 490 to keep, 477 to repeal
Ward 7: 1006 to repeal, 437 to keep
The legislature will need to approve the repeal of IRV as it means the city charter must be amended.
A spokesman for the group 50 Percent Matters, a group that worked to keep IRV intact, said its work is far from over. “We’re going to work toward having a candidate earn 50 percent of the vote be the standard for how we elect a mayor in Burlington,” said Rep. Jason Lorber (D-Burlington). Lorber, who supports IRV on a statewide level, said Tuesday’s defeat shouldn’t stall efforts to put IRV in place for statewide offices.
Lorber pointed out that IRV was upheld in five of the city’s seven wards, which indicated to him that enough voters do support a greater electoral threshold for mayor. He, and others, plan to work with the city council to propose raising the threshold to win the mayor’s seat from 40 percent to 50 percent.
IRV opponent Sandy Baird, also a Democrat, said she thinks reverting to the old system that required a candidate to win 40 percent of the vote worked well and hopes this puts an end to IRV in Burlington, and in Vermont.
Baird said raising the standard from 40 to 50 percent is a bad idea and will guarantee runoffs in almost every race.
“I think IRV helped create a crisis in confidence in the mayor,” said Baird.
Other Burlington Ballot Issues
Clarification to mayoral appointment process 6070-1060 (approved)
Repeal of instant-runoff voting 3972-3669 (approved)
Creation of clean energy district 5702-1708 (approved)
Fire truck bond 5863-1680 (approved)
Airport bond 5817-2091 (approved)
School budget 4230-2856 (approved)
Vermont Yankee
In other Town Meeting Day news, 15 towns added their voices to the growing chorus of people hoping to shut down Vermont Yankee in 2012. Last year, 36 towns approved similar resolutions.
Voters in Woodstock, Thetford, Bristol, Fayston, Brookfield, Montgomery, Moretown, Waitsfield, Danville, Cabot, Huntington, Sharon, Jamaica, Peacham, and Winooski voted to shut down Vermont Yankee in 2012 and replace it with renewable sources of energy.
In addition, Moretown added this clause to its resolution: “Entergy shall fund the training of Yankee’s existing workers to build and maintain green energy production systems in Vermont to replace Yankee’s power.”
One town, Rockingham, defeated the measure and Cambridge took no action on it.
* * * * UPDATED * * * *
I caught up with Mayor Bob Kiss this morning to talk about election results in Burlington, and one city councilor’s call for him to read the electoral tea leaves and resign. Here’s what he had to say:
“I think Ed’s suggestion is patently ridiculous,” said Kiss. “I don’t think Ed is a constructive force on the council and he brings a tension to the process.”
The mayor added that during his four years as mayor, the city has made many improvements — despite some of the current challenges.
“During the four years I’ve been mayor, the city has made improvements in terms of finance, infrastructure and arts and celebration. I think the city is performing in a much better stance than when I took office,” said Kiss.
He also doesn’t share the assessment of Councilors Adrian, Keogh and Paul and Councilor-elect Wright that his office hasn’t provided leadership on key issues facing the city. “We face a challenge with Burlington Telecom, there’s no question, but there has been leadership from my administration across the board on a variety of issues and we have worked with the council on variety of topics as they merit discussion,” said Kiss.
He’s not disheartened by last night’s defeat of IRV, or of the three Progressives running in contested elections. “I think the Progressives running in Ward 2 ran strong campaigns, and the elections were close, which to me means that city voters continue to show support for Progressive values.”
Kiss said the rejection of IRV was not unanimous across the city, and he believes it’s an issue that could come before voters again in the future. “Only 22 percent of voters voted in the election, and I think there are people who would like to see IRV remain in place,” said Kiss. “I think this is an issue we should keep talking about. I don’t think yesterday’s vote ends the discussion.”
The mayor said he would favor increasing the threshold to be elected mayor from 40 percent of the vote to more than 50 percent.
Correction: This post has been corrected as Progressive City Councilor Marrisa Caldwell’s name was originally misspelled. My apologies.
This article appears in Mar 3-9, 2010.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Let’s face it: IRV narrowly lost in large part because pro-IRV supporters (and I’m one) were not fired up & did not do a very effective job in convincing Burlington residents in most of the city of the need to vote on Tuesday (it’s similar to the get out and vote challenge that will be facing Democrats nationwide this Summer and Fall). In terms of the IRV vote, you can also add into the equation the fact that there were no big Council races outside of Ward 4, and that some voted against IRV to send a message to the Mayor. I’d also agree with Mayor Kiss that the debate over how we vote has not ended.
So if you can’t get to Colchester from the NNE, it really will be like the rest of Colchester, a collection of unrelated neighborhoods. Or is that Burlington? I tend to get confused.
There isn’t a bridge if you drive to the end of North Ave. I mean, there is a bridge, but it’s a pedestrian bridge. And of course there’s 127. But if you head past a certain point, you have to backtrack to get to Colchester by car.
Some information for Mayor Kiss.He seems to consider this years turnout on the IRV question as not a real reflection of the city’s opinion with 7641 voters voting on the IRV question For his information, 7315 voters voted on the question in 2005,326 less than this year.He deemed this years turnout as “modest”. Turnout would appear to be modest in both of the elections. So Bob what is your point?
There is a bridge. Am I missing a joke here?
If Colchester wants to annex those wards, they should build a bridge or something, so you can get from North Ave. to Colchester.Just sayin’.
Wards Four and Seven are part of Burlington and are unlikely to be annexed by Colchester.And Doug. The point of claiming false majorities under IRV does not have to do with the percentages in the final round. It’s about the system of the “rounds” themselves. The majority you speak for Bob in 2009 was manufactured by the IRV process. The majority yesterday did not have to be manufactured over multiple rounds. It simply was.
Time for Ward 4 to be annexed to Colchester. “Birds of a feather flock together.”
…Oh yes, and Kurt Wright had only 33% first-place votes in 2009. So had he won, nearly 70% of the voters would have cast a first-place vote for someone other than Kurt. (Had Andy won, nearly 80% would have voted for someone else.)Can we PLEASE stop citing the 29%/71% statistic and calling the 2009 results “perverse” and a “false majority”.
Here are some interesting statistics for those who believe in “false” majorities:In 2009, Bob Kiss received 4,313 (52%) of 8,374 votes in the final runoff round. Kurt Wright received 4,061 votes (48%).In 2010, Question 5 to repeal IRV (yes) received 3,972 (52%) of 7,641 votes. Against repeal (no) received 3,669 (48%)So, how is a 52% majority of 8,374 voters somehow “false” while 52% of 7,641 is legitimate? I wonder how a “Keep IRV” question on November’s ballot (higher turnout) would fair. Anyone interested in signing petition? 😉 Maybe the legislature could legitimately delay acting on yesterday’s vote until the next one was decided.