Supporting Democracy

[Re “Attorney General Under Fire for Charging ICE Protesters,” September 24, online]: I’m somewhat dismayed by the opinion held by certain state and local representatives that our attorney general should not prosecute the seven clergy members who protested the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on September 4 by intentionally subjecting themselves to arrest.

My opinion, in brief: I completely and wholeheartedly support the actions of Rev. Karen Johnston and other clergy that led to their arrest and subsequent arraignment on October 20. Their actions were brave, necessary and warranted. Many thanks to them all!

I also commend, completely understand and wholeheartedly support the subsequent arraignment and prosecution of those arrested. Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark was 100 percent correct when she stated that the prosecution of these actions was included in her job responsibilities. Many thanks to Attorney General Clark!

I disagree with those who believe that supporting the protesters and our AG represents a conflict of interest. Supporting both the protesters and our AG is illustrative of a healthy, robust and strong democracy!

Hidden Gems

There were a few diamonds in the “Art at a Crossroads” issue of Seven Days [September 23] that made my day and reminded me that if life is not exactly Monty Python and the Holy Grail, it is sometimes pretty close. Who can wear the same socks for what could be called almost an infinite number of days [True 802: “Darn Nasty”]? Might not be the most pressing human problem, but at least I think the achievement is worthy of some space in a paper.

Advertising an old, rusty, state-owned bridge online for free [“Burlington-Winooski Bridge Posted on Craigslist — for Free”] is probably an exercise in futility, yet it affirms that Vermont is full of dreamers trying to reach the impossible.

And if there were a Pulitzer Prize for a paragraph, or just a sentence, I would nominate the beginning of “Art at a Crossroads” and this sentence: “Months ago, measurements were taken [to move a boat one floor up] and mock-ups made to avert this scenario [not to damage walls], but sometimes this building must make itself known.”

Of course, obituaries are always a source of pleasure [“Life Lines”], because there are no more interesting lives than the lives of dead people.

I occasionally read English, Canadian, German and Czech papers, but American journalism rocks.

‘Grateful for Seven Days’

Reading “Feedback,” I often wonder why people are writing in with bitchy complaints. I feel so grateful for Seven Days. Not every town has a free paper, much less one with such great writing, pictures and stories. Love the crossword puzzles. So much talent, and I know no one is getting rich. One good thing about the complaints is that it reminded me to make a donation. Thanks!

Important Island

Having grown up in Plattsburgh, N.Y., in a history-loving family, I appreciated the excellent and thorough treatment of the Battle of Valcour [“Of Glory & Gunpowder: The Champlain Valley Remembers the Most Important Revolutionary War Fight You’ve Never Heard of: the Battle of Valcour Island,” October 7]. It hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves because the 99-day-old U.S. lost. But as Jim Carrier points out, that loss helped us win the war (albeit five years later).

Two factors that are often overlooked contributed to America’s Pyrrhic success: British overconfidence — the vaunted Royal Navy didn’t really have to prepare for a bunch of farmers in souped-up rowboats! — and their failure to account for the climate until they realized they could be frozen in for the winter, and so they had to retreat to Canada instead of dividing and conquering. Historian Jack Kelly does a deep dive into both in his outstanding book Valcour.

I also appreciated the nuanced examination of Benedict Arnold’s behavior [“Hero Complex: A Vermont Historian Reflects on the Complicated Legacy of America’s Most Notorious Traitor, Benedict Arnold,” October 7]. That article demonstrates why history should be left to historians, not politicians.

Related Thoughts

[Re “Culturally Relevant: Seven Things I Think I Think,” October 21]: I really think having Dan Bolles writing his “Culturally Relevant” column is genius. He’s an entertaining writer, and serving as an editor has hidden that talent. And this avenue for him to share his witty and quirky opinions is funny, interesting and adds something that has been missing from Seven Days since the political column was put out to pasture. It should be noted that Dan is a pretty accomplished bowler, so I look forward to him sharing tips on picking up the dreaded 7-10 split in future columns. I think.

Not Proud

[Re “Emoji That: The Princeton Review Has Ranked UVM as the No. 1 LGBTQ-Friendly College in the Country,” September 30]: That certainly is no badge of honor.

I’d guess it’s greater than just the college and that Vermont is the No. 1 LGBTQ-friendly state in the country as well. I’d also guess that it didn’t happen organically — that it was orchestrated by outside money like the overwhelming takeover of our now extremely dysfunctional liberal politics.

I am a lifelong Burlingtonian and, until recently, a left-leaning Democrat. No longer. Our local and state politics have become hellishly liberal. I believe in the dignity of every human being. That’s not the same thing as supporting anything-goes vulgar politics.

And worse, intentionally denying a child a mommy or a daddy in a same-sex marriage. This is what caused me to think more deeply about it.

At a large gathering I asked a young 10-year-old child who her mommy and daddy were. She very sadly said to me, “I don’t have a daddy.” Her many cousins have mommies and daddies. It broke my heart.

I’ve thought about it many times since. It still troubles me.

You tell me: Is it moral/ethical for same-sex couples to intentionally deny a child a mommy or a daddy? It’s true that lots of children are forced to live without a parent. But to do it intentionally?

Ballot Business

On Tuesday, November 3, voters in Vermont will choose their candidates in the midterm elections — if they haven’t already. Read on for some last-minute letters.

[Re “Home Stretch: Gov. Phil Scott Has Handily Defeated Opponents for a Decade. But Political Newcomer Amanda Janoo Is Mounting a Credible Challenge,” October 14]: I’m ashamed of Vermont. Instead of addressing our spending, many have decided we should confiscate money from the perceived-rich second-home owners. Supporters of this initiative likely believe this will only affect out-of-staters, yet Vermonters owning second homes will also pay the tax. The Progressives again think the answer to Vermont’s inability to change is to find more people to tax.

This fiscal tax grab will also hurt Vermont. Tourism is an important economic driver for the state. Visitors — those with vacation homes and those who rent homes — spend money here. They visit restaurants, buy groceries, ski at our resorts, hike and bike our trails. There is a tipping point where they’ll vote with their feet, selling their second homes and visiting elsewhere, forever damaging Vermont’s economy.

Candidate Amanda Janoo and others believe the fallacy that these second homes will become long-term housing. If these homes were suitable as primary homes, why didn’t Vermonters buy them? The answer is simple: These homes are often remote, located in areas with low-paying resort jobs, too large or too small, expensive to maintain, and have high property taxes.

Vermont should focus on reducing spending, not extending its tax base. Let’s support the state with revenues from within the state, not seek to steal from the perceived rich who drive so much of the economy.

We support Amanda Janoo for governor because, as “Home Stretch” [October 14] makes clear, she welcomes and responds to community — i.e., citizen — input. The incumbent, by contrast, has demonstrated that he operates differently, often to the benefit of commercial interests. Three examples come to mind.

One is that Vermont has an outdated and inadequate bottle bill because Gov. Phil Scott vetoed an exhaustively debated revision. Consequently, the state today denies deposit and return status for many bottles that are returnable elsewhere, like in Maine and Oregon. We understand that trash haulers such as Casella prefer that status quo.

Second, despite a decade of Scott’s tenure, Vermont has ongoing turmoil with funding and administration of K-12 education. And the state has an education secretary whom the legislature rejected and who lacks public support.

Third, strong legislative work for restrictions on data centers, with widespread public support, encountered a Scott veto — a further expression of his arrogance toward the public and the legislature.

We urge voters to elect Amanda Janoo for responsive leadership.

Credit: John Daly

Sometimes people say things that are just so bizarre, one wonders how any rational person could make such a statement.

That strange reality with the spoken word sometimes aligns itself with publications, where an included picture leaves one shaking one’s head, wondering: WTF?

A recent “top story” in Seven Days was about a popular bakery moving from Waitsfield to Montpelier [“Mad River Donuts to Move to Montpelier From Waitsfield,” October 16, online]. It included a picture of a baker holding a tray of doughnuts. The doughnuts certainly looked delicious, but their looks also indicated a monstrous level of sugar and probably fat.

This was especially interesting because Alison Novak recently wrote a “gaga” piece in Seven Days on Amanda Janoo’s candidacy for governor [“Home Stretch,” October 14].

I found the contrast noteworthy because candidate Janoo’s major platform —other than increasing taxation on the richest 1 percent of tax filers, who already pay around 33 percent of all of Vermont personal income taxes — is free primary health care for all Vermonters as a step toward universal health care.

That’s not going to solve Vermont’s health care cost issues as long as publications like Seven Days visually profile the consumption of a food product that no reasonable person would list as nutritious — and then refer to the article as a “Top Story.”

[Re “‘Defend the Guard’ Bill Gets Shot Down,” March 10, online]: As a veteran of the Vermont Air National Guard, I understand that military service is not simply about following orders. It also involves sacrifices by those who serve and the families who stand behind them.

I served four years in the Guard. My husband was also serving while we were raising our family. I chose to leave because I did not want to risk an overseas deployment and its impact on our family. My husband continued to serve.

That experience is one reason I am concerned about Gov. Phil Scott’s failure to respond to a letter signed by 27 Vermont veterans, retired military officers and Guard family members calling on him and state legislators to support the Defend the Guard Act. The letter raised concerns about deploying Vermont National Guard members into overseas combat without prior Congressional authorization and called for a public legislative hearing. It was publicly reported on August 20. To date, there has been no response from the governor.

Reasonable people can disagree about the legislation, and a governor is entitled to explain his position. But when veterans and military families raise serious concerns, they deserve more than silence.

Leadership does not require agreement; it requires listening. It requires being willing to explain decisions to the people affected by them.

I know that service comes with obligations. Our elected leaders have obligations, too.

Thank you for your in-depth and interesting article about gubernatorial candidates Amanda Janoo and Phil Scott [“Home Stretch,” October 14]. I was surprised that you missed the fact that Janoo is running as a Democrat/Progressive, nominated by both major parties. It’s printed in black and white on every Vermonter’s General Election ballot!

As a reminder, the Vermont Progressive Party is the most successful third party in the country. We’ve had elected representatives serving in the Vermont Statehouse for decades, so we’re naturally excited that Janoo was nominated by both the Democratic Party and the Progressive Party.

Amanda Janoo will make a wonderful governor for Vermont.

[Re “A Civil Debate Showcases the Differences Between Scott, Janoo,” October 21, online]: As I watched the gubernatorial debates this week, it was apparent that Amanda Janoo is highly intelligent; has some very good ideas; and recognizes that individual villages, towns and municipalities must have the opportunity and responsibility to chart their own futures. For example, she understands that saving small, rural schools is critical for maintaining civic engagement and attracting young families. Supporting meaningful local control is key, as nobody likes dicta handed down from on high from Montpelier — such as, for example, Act 181.

However, it is also clear that Ms. Janoo does not have the experience necessary to manage the complex bureaucracy of the state government. Even Gov. Phil Scott, who has decades of experience navigating the relationships between the governor’s office, legislature and public, still struggles with identifying practical new solutions to old problems.

If Mr. Scott were reelected, I think he should immediately invite Ms. Janoo to join his staff and task her with developing creative approaches for the state to work with individual localities on housing, school funding and property taxes. I sensed that these two people have the mutual respect required for effectively working together and that they have complementary skills that could greatly benefit Vermont. Wouldn’t it be novel for politicians to listen to different points of view and work together to improve the lives of all Vermonters? And, perhaps in a few years, Ms. Janoo would be ready to take over the reins of the governor’s office and lead Vermont into the future.

In the article “Home Stretch” [October 14], Alison Novak writes: “[Scott] positioned himself as a rare breed of moderate Republican, a check on the excesses of a Democrat-controlled legislature.” While Ms. Novak may have been meaning to paraphrase Gov. Phil Scott’s words, they weren’t presented as a direct quote, meaning she chose to use the pejorative and grammatically incorrect “Democrat” as an adjective. The correct phrasing is Democratic-controlled legislature.

Calling the Democratic Party the “Democrat Party” is a political tactic that dates back to the McCarthy era, and I want to make sure we are not inadvertently, let alone intentionally, permitting that sort of doublespeak to become commonplace.

Credit: Sarah Cronin

Kevin McCallum’s piece “Prop Drop: Voters Will Decide This Fall Whether to Enshrine Labor Rights and Antidiscrimination Measures in the Vermont Constitution” [Voters’ Guide, October 14] lacks critical information that voters need before casting their vote.

The third sentence of Proposal 4 (the so-called “equality of rights” amendment) enshrines government discrimination in favor of “historically marginalized groups,” in perpetuity. It is not an equal rights amendment. Proposal 4 would provide the legal framework to defend Vermont’s existing diversity, equity and inclusion bureaucracy and laws — and expand them — all at taxpayer expense.

However, affirmative action programs, now known as DEI, would be struck down in federal court because they’re discriminatory; the House and Senate judiciary committees’ own expert witness, professor Peter Teachout of Vermont Law & Graduate School, stated such in his testimony. These lawsuits would cost taxpayers money. Government is not supposed to provide preferential treatment for anyone, yet that is what Proposal 4 is designed to do.

Proposal 3 does more than protect union bargaining.

It would stop lawmakers from setting limits on public-sector union negotiations. That would give those unions more power at taxpayers’ expense, and it could make laws that control costs unconstitutional. It would also ban Vermont, forever, from giving private-sector workers the choice to join or pay a union without risking their job. And it might deter business growth when Vermont businesses are already under pressure.

Voting no takes nothing away from union workers. Vermont already has more labor laws per person than any other state, and every current right to collective bargaining would stay in place if the proposal were to fail.

[Re “Prop Drop,” Voters’ Guide, October 14]: I’ve noticed that a group called the Fiscal Alliance Foundation has been running large ads in Seven Days telling Vermonters to vote no on Proposal 3 in the upcoming election. I’ve also seen a flood of ads from the same group on my social media.

Proposal 3 would guarantee the right to collective bargaining in our state constitution.

Collective bargaining is simply the process of negotiation between employers and a group of employees. It allows workers to negotiate wages, hours, workplace safety and other working conditions with their employers.

Putting this in our constitution is not some crazy, radical, left-wing idea: Five states (Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Missouri and New York) include this right in their constitutions. Illinois added it in 2022. This amendment was passed by the Vermont House of Representatives by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 125 to 15 and by the Senate unanimously, 29 to 0.

The Fiscal Alliance Foundation, which is spending big to stop this from passing, is a Massachusetts-based “dark money” group. It’s registered as a nonprofit 501c3, which means that the superrich and big corporations can donate unlimited funds anonymously and get a tax deduction for every nickel they contribute.

Despite the propaganda from this group, the results are clear: Union members and other workers in states that allow collective bargaining have better wages, better health care and safer workplaces (see “‘Right-to-Work’ States Still Have Lower Wages” by the Economic Policy Institute, 2015).

Please vote yes on Proposal 3.

[Re “Prop Drop,” Voters’ Guide, October 14]: Vermont’s constitution does not have an equal protection clause that prohibits discrimination based on a person’s race, sex, religion or other characteristics.

Article 7, the Common Benefits Clause, serves as the constitutional protection against unequal treatment but does not address problems of unfair and unjust discrimination.

Proposal 4 changes this by addressing historical gaps in our constitution and strengthening civil rights. Amending Vermont’s constitution to include Prop 4 expands upon the principles of equality and liberty and protects all Vermonters from discrimination by ensuring the government does not create or perpetuate legal, social or economic inferiority of any class of people.

Prop 4 would:

  • Serve as a foundation for protecting the rights and dignity of historically marginalized populations and address existing inequalities.
  • Add to existing protections by explicitly specifying the government must not deny equal treatment under law on account of a person’s race, ethnicity, religion, disability, national origin and sex — including sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.
  • Ensure the strongest legal protection for all Vermonters with comprehensive and inclusive equal protection. This is significant because we can no longer count on the federal government or U.S. Supreme Court to provide adequate protection against discrimination.

Enshrining Prop 4 in the state constitution would be a victory for all who believe in equality. Vote yes for Prop 4, because it is clear our founding document stands for everyone who calls Vermont home.

[Re “A Race for the Ages: Aiden Otterman, 18, Is Running Against His Great-Uncle and a Selectboard Chair to Become Vermont’s Youngest Legislator,” Voters’ Guide, October 14]: Apparently Seven Days writers are now merely scribes, simply repeating a politician’s words as fact. Aside from spouting generic corporate Democratic talking points, Mr. Otterman may or may not be the youngest person elected to the Statehouse “in modern history,” whatever that means.

Five minutes’ worth of research reveals that Greg Reed of St. Albans was elected as a state representative in 1970 at age 18, and he was 19 when he became a member of the House. Since I don’t know the birthdays of either man, I can’t confirm which would be the youngest. However, that’s your job to do, not mine. Also of note, Greg Reed went on to be convicted of arson and murder 10 years later and was paroled in March 2005. Let’s hope Mr. Otterman has a brighter future.

[Re “Q&A: 2026 Candidates for Vermont Lieutenant Governor,” Voters’ Guide, October 14]: Molly Gray is by far our best candidate for lieutenant governor. She has experience in the position, having previously served alongside Gov. Phil Scott, and was by all accounts highly effective in the role. She’s also spent her career advancing human rights: as an assistant attorney general in the Vermont attorney general’s criminal division; for the International Committee of the Red Cross, working on human rights issues; and most recently at the Vermont Afghan Alliance, an organization helping Afghan allies who supported our troops resettle in Vermont. Her long history of fighting for what is right and for the rights of others is consistent and inspiring.

Molly is also committed to a cause I am passionate about: universal primary care. This could and should be the first step toward reducing health care costs in Vermont by eliminating the insurance middlemen who add cost but no value. Imagine providing preventative care and screenings to every Vermonter so that diseases are caught early or prevented entirely. The current fragmented lack of a system in Vermont and across the country costs us all not only in dollars but also in human suffering.

I have seen it every day of my 35-year career as a physical therapist in nonprofit health care. We all deserve better. Molly’s experience and commitment to this cause gives me confidence that we can improve quality of life in our state.

Correction

A photo caption on the “True 802” story in last week’s paper, “Biotech Training,” misidentified the building where researchers were photographed. They were in the University of Vermont’s Firestone Medical Research Building.

This article appears in October 28 • 2026.