Two months after her firing as the City of Montpelier’s planning and community development director, Gwendolyn Hallsmith says she’s seriously considering running for mayor of Vermont’s capital city.
“My motivation for running is to continue to give citizens a voice in their future and to make sure their voice is not forgotten,” she says.
Hallsmith (pictured at right) says she is collecting signatures to put her name on the ballot and is “tentatively” planning to announce her bid on February 5, though she says she may still reconsider.
Hallsmith would face off against Mayor John Hollar, with whom she publicly tangled throughout the fall. After she was put on paid leave in November, Hallsmith accused the mayor of orchestrating her ouster because of her outspoken advocacy for public banking. Hollar is a contract lobbyist whose clients include Wells Fargo and Bank of America.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Are these two in different parties or will this be a primary fight?
Montpelier city government is non partisan
When Hollar says “I had nothing to do with it,”
that is a transparent falsehood
(being a lawyer he can probably persuade
some people it was not an actual lie).
In March 2013 Hollar sent an email to city manager Fraser
in which he made his involvement pretty clear:
“To repeat myself ad nauseum, I still don’t see how our city’s chief economic development officer can hold and promote views that are fundamentally anti-capitalist in nature.â€
Well, of course a hired bank lobbyist would say that.
Here’s a well-sourced report in support on what was,
in effect, the public lynching of Gwen Hallsmith:
http://readersupportednews.org…
Your article has the facts completely wrong about the sequence of events. The errors are so profound as to be defamatory. The facts are that Gwen was placed on administrative leave, and subsequently fired after she refused to let the Mayor and the City Manager trample on her first amendment right to advocate for public banking on her own time. Here is a link to the email that links private banks to the Mayor to the Town Manager:
https://docs.google.com/file/d…
Here is the correct sequence of events
September 20, 2013 – memo (see above link) from mayor to manager demanding that something be done about the planning director.
September 27, 2013 – memo from manager to Gwen demanding that she refrain from any public speaking (as a private citizen or city employee) related to public banking. This was a clear violation of Gwen’s first amendment rights.
October 23 2013 – Times Argus story on first amendment violations.
November 6, 2013 – Gwen was placed on administrative leave.
November 26, 2013 – Gwen was fired.
The article cited by Apanther is an excellent summary of the events.
What exactly in the BLOG post was wrong? Especially to the extent of being defamatory?
“That said, people can vote for whom they want to vote for.”
That’s mighty white of you John.
Paul has the sequence of events wrong. The article is defamatory because it falsely implies that Gwen accused the mayor after she was put on leave to hide a performance problem, when the opposite is the truth. In fact the Mayor and the City Manager concocted false performance problems to hide their actions that abridged her first amendment rights. Please take the time to follow the link to the Mayor’s email, as well as the one in Apanther’s post that is an excellent summary of the events.
Paul has a single mistake, which is more like poor wording. Yes he should have written that she accused the mayor prior to being placed on leave.
As for defamation, it’s not even close. The article does not imply it was done in retaliation, and defamation is making a “false statement” not making a statement that someone reading an internet blog can read into to make it seem malicious. Relax.
FYI, I think the mayor sucks and support Hallsmith in this situation. But this is a blog post, and freaking out because it doesn’t have a comprehensive review of events that have occurred over the past 2 years isn’t necessary.
Thanks for supporting Gwen. The defamatory charge isn’t just from me, attorneys have called it that. I’m not freaking out, I expect the facts to be reported in a truthful matter on an issue as important as this. We don’t need shills for the big private too big to fail banks firing people who advocate against those same banks. This is really about the New Economy and public banking, so we can achieve economic justice.
Montpelier being the Countries smallest Capital citizenry certainly has big time Capital Cities drama to share.
On reading this article, I was extremely disappointed to see that the author has his sequence of events wrong, which serves to give the wrong impression about the motives for Gwen Hallsmith’s actions.
Mayor Hollar sent the email trying to shut Gwen Hallsmith up long before she was put on leave and fired, and he apparently did so in response to communications he received from colleagues in the banking lobby. He wrote that Hallsmith’s advocacy “can’t be distinguished from her official position with the city.†and that she “can’t continue”. City Manager Bill Fraser ordered her to stop speaking about public banking on her free time in response to this demand from the mayor. Last time I checked, this is still America, and we still have free speech.
The mayor continues to lobby for his special interest clients, like big banking, and big pharma, and it is fitting that his picture is of him in the statehouse, where he has spent a good deal of time putting the financial interests of his paid clients ahead of the public good. It is especially hypocritical for him to question Hallsmith’s advocacy work for the public good, when he is paid handsomely to oppose it. It also calls into question his integrity, as the story has changed several times about his memo: first the mayor denied trying to silence her, then said he sent it in response from a message from concerned citizens, and it was also claimed he wrote it in response to a question from the city manager… Which was it?
When Hallsmith responded that Fraser’s demands violated her 1st amendment right to free speech, the city manager responded that he was dissapointed she chose to stick up for her right to free speech, saying that he was “disappointed but, unfortunately, not surprised that you chose a confrontational and adversarial response…”. He did lift the unconstitutional demand, but replaced it with a whole series of hoops she would have to jump through.
It was only after that, that she was put on administrative leave and subsequently fired.
She appealed the decision, and the appeals process was a travesty of justice. The so called hearing was officiated by Bill Frasers assistant, the person who had been given part of Hallsmiths’s job, and who had just recently finished her probationary period… hardly an impartial juror. Gwen was not allowed to cross examine witnesses, and the city was allowed to present heresay, while the assistant city manager was given the authority to reject any evidence or testimony she wanted. Despite Gwen’s repeated pleas to have an open and transparent hearing, the city held this in a closed session.
I love this city. I serve on the Montpelier Conservation Commission, and volunteer a lot of time to make this a better place to live. I am concerned by the overwhelming tsunami of corporate cash which threatens to drown the voice of the people, and the revolving door which has come to roost, where lobbyists and executives from special interests rotate from corporate to government and back, guaranteeing that the corporations can set the policies, unless the people speak up, and demand to be heard.
This story has legs. All of the city council and planning commission meetings are available to watch on the city website, and as I have perused the archives, it has become evident that there is an ethics problem in this city, and it is not Gwen Hallsmith. The emails and communications are all available for inspection. I hope a journalist WILL take the time to investigate this issue, and clear the air…
Ben Eastwood, Montpelier, VT
DISCLOSURE: I SIT ON THE MONTPELIER CONSERVATION COMMISSION, AN APPOINTED POSITION. MY TERM IS ENDING, AND UP FOR REAPPOINTMENT IN FEBRUARY. THIS LETTER REPRESENTS MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION, AND SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED TO REFLECT THAT OF THE MONTPELIER CONSERVATION COMMISSION, OR THE CITY OF MONTPELIER.
A couple of salient points. First of all, just because this is a blog does not absolve the author and editors from their ethical duties to report accurate information.
Secondly, When presented with the facts, the editor decided not to correct the misinformation, but to allow it to remain as is, without clarification. If it was a mistake, it is misinformation, own the problem and fix the wording and clarify the issue. If you are called on your mistake, and refuse to fix it, it becomes deliberate disinformation, which calls into question the journalistic integrity and credibility of the entire paper.
At best, this was an honest mistake, but given the attitude of the editor, it doesn’t seem like they want to clear the air. A simple mea culpa and paragraph clarifying the point is the least they can do to repair the damage the paper has caused to its own reputation and that of Gwendolyn Hallsmith by the sloppy reporting in this article.
DISCLOSURE: I SIT ON THE MONTPELIER CONSERVATION COMMISSION. IT IS AN APPOINTED, UNPAID VOLUNTEER POSITION, AND MY TERM IS NEARLY OVER. I AM UP FOR REAPPOINTMENT NEXT MONTH. MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REPRESENT THOSE OF THE MONTPELIER CONSERVATION COMMISSION, OR THE CITY OF MONTPELIER.
“Secondly, When presented with the facts, the editor decided not to correct the misinformation,”
Who presented him with the facts? Did you call and explain the facts to him. Again this is a blog on the internet, it’s not a news article and I highly doubt Mr. Heintz regularly visits all the blog entries he posts and wades through the comments.
It’s amazing that a blog entry noting two “potential” candidates running for mayor has turned in to a bitch fest about events that took place months ago and were covered at that time. The point of the entry is to make note of the candidates, it is NOT about the fall out between the two…
Politics and Lobbyists and Hats are not my expertise. Logic is.
It is obvious to me, that the editor and the reporter of “Seven Days” have published the truth about Gwendolyn Hallsmith having “accused the mayor of … after she was put on paid leave” … but they have not published the details of what happened before that “paid leave” .
It does seem very clear that “Seven Days” is hanging their Hat on a true published fact similar to the following …
It is dark after sunset.
“Seven Days” has not mentioned that it is always rather bright before sunset, even though it might be cloudy.
This behavior of “Seven Days” runs the risk of causing people to think that the reputation of the Sun has been damaged.
That is hurtful.
It is clear to me that Gwendolyn Hallsmith is very much like that Sun, which has been so beneficial for the earth.
In Gwendolyn’s case, the benefits of her efforts have been spectacular for Montpelier.
If Gwendolyn’s reputation is not damaged, Montpelier and Vermont will continue to benefit in more spectacular ways.
How easy and honest would it be, for “Seven Days” to apologize for the partial truth, and to publish a correction?
This would be a big relief for so many of us … being reassured that the Sun shines in the heavens, even after dark.
Gwen Hallsmith provided the reporter with all of the facts and supporting emails and memos before the author wrote this article. Upon reading the article, she immediately contacted the paper and the editor, Jeff Good, replied to her, and said that since she continued to raise the issue after she was fired, the story is accurate, and they wouldn’t clarify the point.
This is like writing an article about occupy wallstreet from the bankers point of view, and starting the narrative at september 2011, anout how some people got forclosed on so they protested the banks, which say they have done nothing wrong and the protesters and supporters are welcome to protest but due to the nature of protesting after their forclosure, it is doubtful people will support them… And when the editor is notified that the banks collapsed on 2008 due to their shaky practices, and the collapse of the banks lead to the forclosures,the editor saying, well you did protest in 2011, so therefore the story is accurate, but you are welcome to write a letter to the editor to vent…
Heintz has written a second piece, about how the wodower of Senator King is a lobbyist, and he gave Hollar a second chance at a cheap shot at Gwen, and her supporters.
Again, a blog does not absolve the author of his duty to be factually accurate, and this article is not. If this is strictly an opinion piece, it needs to contain a disclosure that this is a gossip column and none of the comments are intended to be construed as factual… at least then it would be honest. It is an article under the 7 Days masthead, and the sloppy, lazy, biased blogging and editing shown here reflects poorly on the entire paper.
DISCLOSURE:I SIT ON THE MONTPELIER CONSERVATION COMMISSION. NONE OF MY COMMENTS SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO REFLECT THE OPINIONS OF THE CITY OF MONTPELIER, OR THE COMMISSION. THEY ARE MINE ALOME AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN
Just so we are clear,
The author wrote something unclear that should be clarfied
The author has an obligation to be factual
Mrs. Hallsmith contacted the editor?
Why not contact the author? Seems Mrs. Hallsmith is confused as to which direction she should be taking. This is a blog … on the web, which is under totally different people then the print edition. Instead of contacting the papers editor, she should have tried the guy tasked with the website and/or the author himself. I’m not surprised she got the response she did from someone who isn’t really directly associated with the event. That’s pretty predictable. She would likely have better luck if she contacted Paul Heintz.
I can’t read minds, and I do not know if she did or not, however, I do know that once she contacted the paper, Jeff Good discussed the matter with the author. She did nothing improper by going to the employees boss when the employee made a mistake that damaged her reputation, any more than anyone asking to see the manager when their food is crummy. You don’t go into the kitchen yourself, that would be unprofessional, you calmly and professionaly discuss it with the manager, as Gwen did. This insures less conflict and a more positive resolution to the problem. Again, mr. Heintz is aware of the issue, and yet refuses to fix it. If, like you suggest, it is a minor problem, then a quick mia culpa would have sufficed, though at this point, with several days to respond, and nothing from the author, it is becoming an actionable defamation of character.
DISCLOSURE:I SIT ON THE MONTPELIER CONSERVATION COMMISSION. THE OPINIONS STATED HERE ARE MY OWN AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REPRESENT THOSE OF THE CITY OF MONTPELIER, OR THE MONTPELIER CONSERVATION COMMISSION.
I didn’t say she did anything wrong with talking to the editor. See, when you read stuff like that into things that’s where these issues arise. Try just reading the actual words that people write.
As for her reputation, all of the whiney comments that are being posted are doing far more damage to her reputation then this simple article on the two candidates running for Mayor. Now it just looks like this is all a quest for publicity… drag up the past in effort to appear a victim and garner sympathy. As if the point of the campaign is to run on being a victim as opposed to running on merits.
As I stated earlier, I support Mrs. Hallsmith in her quest to clear her name. I think Mr. Hollar should leave public office for good. If asked after reading the article I would have said I support Mrs Hallsmith… after reading the comments I’m hoping a third candidate emerges.
Deleted
Hi there –
Thanks for your interest. I contacted Paul Heintz first, of course. He told me that he had to talk to his editors. So I sent the relevant information to Jeff Good and Paula Routly. Jeff Good, the news editor for Seven Days, was the one who ultimately responded. Here is what he wrote:
From: Jeff Good
Date: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: Facts and Timeline
To: Gwendolyn Hallsmith , Paula Routly , Paul Heintz Dear Gwen,
I have reviewed this with Paul, whose notes reflect that on at least two occasions AFTER your ouster you leveled this criticism at John Hollar. Thus, our story is accurate and we stand by it.
If you would like to expand on the story and inform readers of your statements BEFORE your ouster, I’d invited you to consider writing a letter to the editor.
Thanks very much. Sincerely,
Jeff Good
Well, like John Hollar says, you are welcome to vote for whomever you want.
However, and I am asking out of genuine interest, and a desire for constructive feedback, If you had been fired from your job due to your bosses connections, and your boss and his allies enganged in character assassination, how would you deal with it? The damge here goes beyond any potential run for mayor, and effects her ability to find further employment.
You have stated that the article contains an innacuracy, and that she has done nothing wrong by talkjng to the editor, so, she has addressed it, and the paper has refused to correct their error. How would you suggest dealing with it?
I think Gwen would be happy if a sensible alternative were to announce their candidacy. In fact she has said so. She is running because she loves this city, and has seen, perhaps more directly than anyone else, the disfunction in the current city government. Hollar ran unnopposed, and his tenure has been toxic, and has encouraged an austerity agenda which is wrecking our city. The city, under his leadership, has tried repeatedly to end around the 100 year master plan. Yet nobody is willing to stand up. Nobody is willing to defend the will of the people, as written in that plan. The mayor and members of the planning commission and council seem to look at it as a master suggestion… it is not. Hundreds of citizens helped form that plan.
So, who else will stand up? Who else has the experience? The unchallenged dedication to the people. Heck, even Bill Fraser has praised her work and dedication to the city.
So, should she just roll over and let Heintz and Hollar smear her reputation, or should people say something.
See something, say something. Isn’t that supposed to be the thing to do? Well I see something, and I am calling shenanigans on John Hollar, Paul Heinz, John Good and 7 days on this article.
DISCLOSURE:I AM A MEMBER OF THE MONTPELIER CONSERVATION COMMISSION, AND MY COMMENTS HERE ARE MY OWN OPINIONS AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REFLECT THOSE OF THE CITY OF MONTPELIER, NOR THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Hi again –
Wow, I’m sorry you feel this way, but you also have some facts wrong. The controversy between me and the mayor did not take place “several years ago.” I was fired two months ago. I would have loved it if the reporter had described me as a potential candidate without the inaccurate information, without the snarky comments from the mayor. Without using the inaccurate information in yet another story, the same day I complained about the need for a correction. I think it you were in my shoes, you might also try to set the record straight. This whole thing has been so awful – having misleading information published by one of the more popular political columns in the state does not help. Journalists do have some responsibility to the truth. Facts matter.
Best, Gwen
Ben you struggle with staying on topic. The article announced her candidacy. There is an statement that isn’t as clear as it should be. If it were me I’d ask it be fixed and then move on regardless of the outcome. Possibly blackball 7Days from any future interviews if they didn’t comply.
You can sit here and continue to write overly verbose posts on events from nearly a year ago that have nothing to do with blog post if you wish, but you may as well tell me how Dubya orechestrated 9/11 and why we never really landed on the moon. Mrs. Hallsmith has a lawsuit pending regarding her dismissal, when there is relevant news that would be the time to discuss that aspect of her life more.
I am guessing she would prefer not to be defined by a potential unjust firing.
Hi Gwen,
Sounds like you proceeded in an appropriate manner and that 7 days gave you an opportunity to expand on the reported information if you feel inclined to do so.
Hi “jcarter” –
The article didn’t, in fact, announce my candidacy, only that I was considering it. I would love it if people talked about the good work I did for the city rather than the way my tenure ended, since it was so unjust and – let’s be honest – plain wrong. I haven’t filed a “lawsuit” against the city, it’s a simple appeal of the termination. Same process, Rule 75, as you would use to appeal a traffic ticket. I have been told that reinstatement is not likely, but at least there is hope to clear my name so I can get on with my life. Have you ever tried to find a job with this type of public scandal in your recent past? Before making judgments, try walking even a short distance in my shoes. This type of inaccurate reporting makes it all even more painful.
Best, Gwen
It is not about something that happened “several years ago” John Hollar wasn’t even mayor several years ago, he ran unopposed in the last election. This is about something that has been ongoing since last spring, and it is salient to the entire debate, because it represents the overlying issues and the innacurate reporting which is being used to spin those issues. It is part of a bigger story, where a mayor and his cronies are working to gut the democratic process, and hijack the zoning to put the desires of special interests above the needs of the people. The people have spoken and made a master plan, which Hollar and members of the planning ccommission and members of city council have repeatedly tried to avoid. Gwen has done her job, and insured that proposed zoning and other planning policies reflect the master plan. Because of this dedication to her job she has been called obstructionist.
Then, the mayor uses his influence to further the interest of his banking clients, and silence the most visible voice for public banking, and writes a memo to silence her. When she stands up for her right to free speech, she is fired.
Seven days has a reputation for being a reputable news source, and their behavior here tarnishes that.
DISCLAIMER, I SIT ON THE MONTPELIER CONSERVATION COMMISSION AND THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED HERE ARE MY OWN, AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REPRESENT THOSE OF THE CITY OF MONTPELIER OR TH MONTPELIER CONSERVATION COMMISSION
I’ll edit my post to reflect that this all began in March of this year and not years ago.
I’ll just ask this question though, is it really inaccurate? I mean Mr. Good explained why they think it to be accurate. Do you dispute the assertion that on two occassions after your ouster you leveled the accusations?
If I was in your shoes I’d not even have brought it up. It is pending its way through the courts whom will decide whether there are any merits to you termination. Until then its all more or less accusations. I’d focus on why I’d make a better mayor then Hollar, not why he would make a worse Mayor them me. But I’m no political analyst so take it with a grain of salt.
Oh for Pete’s sake. Ok it mentioned that you were thinking of running not that you were a candidate.
And you haven’t filed a lawsuit, you just filed paperwork in a court of law that will hear the case.
If you would like to talk about the good you have done the city I suggest a.) taking up the offer of writing a letter to the editor and b.) indicating that you have no comment the next time a reporter asks you about your past.
Ok Ben. You are right, the issue began nearly a year ago. My bad. Please don’t sue me for defamation.
The rest of your post is irrelevant so I won’t bother responding to that part.
First of all jcarter, the article isnt anmouncing the candidates, it specifically talks about the ongoing dispute between hallsmith, and hollar.
Second of all, this isnt something that happened “several years ago”. Heck, John wasn’t even mayor several years ago, he ran unopposed last election, after Mary Hooper stood down. These allegations about Gwens performance do not stem from years ago, she has been a valued employee for years, but it has only been since Hollar has come to office that there have been any issues raised about her.
Are you simply misinformed, or are you deliberately trying to obfuscate the truth?
DISCLAIMER, I SIT ON THE MONTPELIER CONSERVATION COMMISSION AND THE OPINIONS STATED HERE ARE MY OWN AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REPRESENT THE CITY OF MONTPELIER NOR THE MONTPELIER CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Yeah, Ben now you are just repeating yourself.
I have since made the correction to reflect that it wasn’t years ago but rather months ago. You should calm down and try reading shit. You would know that in the post you just replied to it didn’t even say “years ago.” A post said that, to which you already responded to.
As for what the blog post was about while you are correct in that it talks about the ongoing dispute, that obviously isn’t the focus or the reason for the post. It was quite clearly stated about Hallsmith considering a run for Mayor.
See, that wasn’t so hard. All Paul had to do was that, and there wouldn’t be this need to sit here and debate the issue.
Cheers, Ben
DDISCLOSURE, I SIT ON THE MONTPELIER CONSERVATION COMMISION, AND THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED HERE ARE MY OWN AND NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS THOSE OF THE CITY OF MONTPELIER OR THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION.
Jcarter, first of all, I’m not the one who is all worked up and swearing. Second of all, you did talk about events that happened several years ago in the post I replied to, maybe you should read what you write.
Perhaps you werent referring to events here, but to my example of how a narrative can be rewritten if the news is reported without salient facts… by using a hypothetical example of how the ows stories would be spun differently if they only included the protest, and not the collapse of thebanks leading up to it. The background information is important, and as much as you may disagree, the facts matter, and reputation matters.
You, in taking responsibilty for your innacurate statements have shown greater integrity than the reporter or the paper.
Cheers.
DISCLAIMER: I SIT ON THE MONTPELIER CONSERVATION COMMISSION, AND MY OPINIONS HERE ARE MY OWN AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REPRESENT THOSE OF THE CITY OR CONSERVATION COMMISION OF MONTPELIER
If I had written the story, it might have said more about why I’d make a good mayor. The way the story reads, it sounds as if the first time I raised an issue about the mayor was after I was put on leave. Most people would read it and attribute my comments about Hollar as ‘sour grapes’ for being let go. That is simply not true.
I first raised the question about what the mayor was doing to me on September 30, 2013 when I talked to the Times Argus about it, off the record, and gave them copies of the relevant documents. I went ‘on the record’ with the paper on October 22, and the first article about the mayor’s memo to the City Manager, telling him that my advocacy for public banking “really can’t continue” was published October 23, 2013.
All hell broke loose at that point. The city leadership was appalled that I would go public with the memos and other information documenting the mayor’s interference with my tenure, and his comments about what I was doing in my private life as an advocate for public banks.
I was put on leave November 6, 2013, and fired on November 23, 2013. No just cause, unless bringing more transparency and accountability to the inner workings of city government are grounds for termination. Last time I checked, that was considered a practice of good governance.
Ben here is the relevant excerpt
“you can sit here and continue to write overly verbose posts on events from nearly a year ago”
Nearly a year ago. Not “years ago”
I’m not sure “shit” is a swear. Maybe a cuss I guess … whatever. Here’s a thought for you… don’t lose sight of the forest through the trees…
” Most people would read it and attribute my comments about Hollar as ‘sour grapes’ for being let go. That is simply not true. “
I don’t think so, at least not if they ignored the comments. I didn’t take it that way when I read it. The issue has already been reported so I was already familiar with it. When 7Days wrote that article it was comprehensive and gave all the relevant information. Because of that, when reading the article I thought hey good for her, hope she wins.
However, at this point Hollar has denied it and you have made your point about your feelings. The court will decide whether it was just or not. Until they have made their decision, just let it go. By continuing to advocate how unjust it was and re-iterating the events and time line make it seem more like sour grapes then anything in the article did.
I guess I didn’t see the original article in Seven Days. I had talked to the reporter, but I didn’t know he wrote a story about it. Do you happen to remember when it was?
I’m not sure Paul wrote it for accuracies sake. It was few months ago I think. I’ll see if I can’t find it and post the link.
Thanks! I just did a search of the archives, and I couldn’t find it. So please let me know if you do. I like Paul’s columns – read them every week. I think he generally does a good job.
Peter … Nice Comment 🙂
A different ending occurred to me …
This would be a big relief for so many of us, including “Seven Days” … being reassured that the Sun shines in the heavens, even after dark.
AND, we could stop reading negative comments about “Seven Days” … and we all could move on to the topics of making our lives better.
I can’t seem to find it either. Possibly it was linked to another site under the “winners losers” column that they put up every week. I really only read Seven Days for websites so I assume the article originated on this site… but it was a while back and while I remember reading the article I can’t actually be 100% sure it was written by a staff member of seven days. May even have been a link to VTDigger although I rarely go to that site…If I happen across it I will post the link.
When I wrote the post it still contained the words years ago.Thank you for correcting your error. If Paul Heintz and John Good simply did as you have done it would have remedied the entire issue. You have shown a higher level of integrity in correcting your comment then they have.
Swearing still has no place in a debate, and the word used clearly is not appropriate for a discussion that children may see.
Cheers, Ben
DISCLAIMER, I SIT ON THE MONTPELIER CONSERVATION COMMISSION, AND THE COMMENTS ARE MY OWN AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REPRESENT THE CITY OF MONTPELIER NOR THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
I don’t believe it did… I’m pretty sure I edited a single post which is below where I changed it to “months.” Either way it’s not important.
I don’t believe children read Seven Days Political Blog. If they do they already know a lot worse words the shit. If you frequented the blog more often you would see worse words used by some of the authors. Don’t confuse this blog with a news source or main stream media outlet. And certainly don’t expect it to be 100% PC. If that’s what you are expecting you are in the wrong place…If you have kids that read political blogs and are worried about a few cuss words offending them, blog this website.
Cheers Ben
No, actually you did change it, here is what you originally wrote.
“You can sit here and continue to write overly verbose posts on events from several years ago that have nothing to do with blog post if you wish, but you may as well tell me how Dubya orechestrated 9/11 and why we never really landed on the moon…”
You have since corrected it. Again, thank you for showing greater journalistic integrity than the author. Cheers.
DISCLOSURE. I AM A MEMBER OF THE MONTPELIER CONSERVATION COMMISSION, MY OPINIONS EXPRESSED HERE ARE MY OWN AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REPRESENT THE CITY OF MONTPELIER OR THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION.
+rolls eyes+