Burlington Progressive David Zuckerman has decided not to seek reelection to the Vermont House of Representatives this fall.

A former House member — Progressive Chris Pearson — has decided to run for the seat and will kick off his campaign Friday.

Zuckerman is part of a two-seat Burlington district covering the neighborhoods in and around the University of Vermont. The other seat is held by Rep. Kesha Ram (D-Burlington), who bested Pearson in 2008 in a spirited four-way race between two Democrats and two Progressives.

Zuckerman, an organic farmer who has purchased farmland in Hinesburg but still resides in Burlington, said the demands of expanding his organic farm clinched his decision.

“It’s the reality of life — the business is taking up a lot of time and energy right now, which is what happens when you take on a half-million dollars in debt,” said Zuckerman, who runs Full Moon Farm with his wife Rachel Nevitt. The pair also has a 4-year-old daughter, and Zuckerman said a desire to spend more time with her also played into his decision.

Zuckerman said he had given up the idea of running for the House months ago, and has considered a run for lieutenant governor and Chittenden County senate.

“I’ve served now for 14 years, and it’s time to take a break,” said Zuckerman. “I may re-engage in a few years, but for now I’m going to step back.”

Earlier this year, Zuckerman admitted to putting in for mileage allowances even though he carpooled to Montpelier. That drew a lot of ire from constituents, but the lead lawyer for the legislature said it’s perfectly legit.

Zuckerman secured the most votes in the 2008 election with 2316, while Ram had 2163. Pearson followed in third with 1494 votes, while Democrat Phillip Ortego had 781 votes.

“As many of you remember, I lost my election in 2008. It was a painful process. But 2010 brings a new opportunity, and my friend David Zuckerman’s retirement from the House creates a great chance for me to go back,” Pearson said in an email inviting supporters to attend his campaign launch Friday on the UVM campus.

He told Seven Days that he’s been thinking about a return to Montpelier for months, but began reaching out to supporters in earnest after the New Year.

“I really miss it, and I was able to accomplish quite a bit in my two years there, and it sort of was just getting started,” Pearson said. “I wanted to give it a lot of thought, and I would like to continue doing [that], and a voice like mine provides an awful lot in the process.”

In his first term, Pearson served as leader of the six-person Progressive Party caucus. During his single term, he called for funding schools by income taxes rather than property taxes. He also introduced legislation to create a “do not mail” registry akin to the state’s Do Not Call registry. The measure was designed to keep people from receiving unwanted junk mail.

Pearson said that in his day job, working for National Popular Vote, he has seen how one person can make a difference in a small legislature.

Besides Pearson, the Progressive Party is likely to run a second candidate in the race, said Morgan Daybell, the party’s executive director.

This article appears in Apr 21-27, 2010.

Shay Totten wrote "Fair Game," a weekly political column, from April 2008-December 2011.

57 replies on “Zuckerman Won’t Seek Reelection to House”

  1. Jimmy-No problem. I was just thinking that since there was so much concern about legislative pay that we ought to discuss it. Most other legislators don’t think it is an issue (nor do most of the media…otherwise it would have been a huge scandal). In case you (or anyone else) is wondering, most legislators “make” more in allowances than they do in base pay (not actually true for me, I am the fourth lowest compensated legislator outside of Washington County). It is all part of the messed up system that I was trying to open the door of discussion on. Since it appears that solutions are not part of the goal, I am not sure where to go from here. I have ideas, but I thought input from those that seem to care would be helpful. In Montpelier I do not only listen to Vermonters from my district. I have always tried to hear from folks who have an interest in the topic or who might be impacted by a decision. Feel free to send your ideas to your Rep. and let them know that I am happy to work on it with them.I am also a sponsor of the NPV bill. So I thought I might add something to the discussion.

  2. 1. I kind of wish Chris Pearson would answer the questions directed at him. When others jump in and answer, it makes it appear that he is incapable of doing so.2. If I have an idea that I want incorporated into a bill, I can email it directly to a member of the legislature. I don’t need to email it to you and have you forward it to someone.

  4. I agree that if someone runs a business into the ground, or is successful, or breaks the law (either employer/employee, or otherwise), then that is a bit more relevant to ones being a lawmaker. But all businesses have to make decisions with respect to whether a customer or client is worth keeping or not. Not every customer is “worth it”. Some customers are not welcome because they cause a disruption in the store. There are many possible situations. For instance, we have chosen to wholesale very little because it is not our business model. There are some who have asked us for product, but it does not fit into our day to make a specific delivery to a specific place as we are too busy, it does not fit for us. Individual business decisions are different than bigger picture abuses etc. Not all business decisions are relevent to how one performs the job as a publically elected official.As for NPV, not all states allocate their votes to the popular vote winner. Very nearly all do. But I know that at least Maine allocates their votes in a proportional manner to the votes that are cast (within the state…and I know…that is different than allocating based on the national vote). The point is that each state has the right to allocate their votes however they want to. The questions to ask and discuss are whether we gain or lose political muscle with various systems. Haik, you are convinced that we lose. Others are convinced that we would win. I think there is a lot of evidence to look at more closely. Sadly, in this blog world, we can get too hung up on short bites to prove each other wrong instead of having a reasonable conversation with deeper thought and reflection.On that note, I am admittedly frustrated that I failed to communicate the mileage issue more clearly. I was willing to speak to the media (7 days) because I believe our compensation system is totally screwed up. That never came through. I have asked legislative council to draft a change to the law…but it is too late for this session. As Sevendays reported in the second article, we are allocated an allowance, it is not a reimbursement. Just as others receive allowances, it is not prescribed how one spends the allowance. But I agree, mileage and meal allowances are bizarre.So, I ask, and these are honest questions; what is the best way to pay legislators? How much? Unlike most jobs, the employees (legislators) are required to live across the state. Should there be different compensation for that disparity? If so, how should it be calculated?Should legislators get health insurance? Should legislators be paid minimum wage? $20,000 a year, $40,000 a year? $60,000 a year? Should legislators be paid only for the session or should they get paid for hours worked throughout the year even when not in session? Should their phone bills and other costs associated with constituent services be reimbursed? Should it be a hard number no matter how long the session? Should legislators make the same per hour rate as the average Vermonter?How much do you think legislators make today? What do you think the benefits are?For those that have taken me to task for doing exactly what the system asks me to do (or anyone for that matter), please think about the above questions and send an answer (nice and completely please) either here or to my legislative email dzuckerman@leg.state.vt.us so that I can figure out how to incorporate them into the bill idea so that it might be addressed next year (I will try to get it taken up by someone else…there are others interested in bringing our compensation in line with the average Vermonter).I understand that some people are upset. So lets do something about changing the system. Let me know your ideas.

  5. The NPV proposal pledges a state’s votes to the winner of the popular vote. That’s the current system, David. A state’s electoral votes go to its popular vote winner.Where can we read this “NVP” proposal that lobbyist Chris Pearson is promoting?(PS- Chris Pearson is a lobbyist. 🙂

  6. “I don’t know this story that’s being referred to, but why should David Zuckerman have to defend any decision regarding his business to anyone on this blog or anyone else for that matter?”How naive (or partisan) can you possibly be? The answer is, because a person’s conduct as a businessperson may be relevant as to how he or she might conduct himself/herself as a state rep. (which he is) and as a state senator, lt. governor, and congressman (all of which he considered running for). He’s not a private citizen. Do you think the public was not entitled to know about presidential candidate George W. Bush’s disastrous history as a businessman before he ran for public office?Are you saying a person’s personal or business decisions can never be relevant to his or her political life? What if in business, a person engages in discriminatory hiring or firing practices? What if they engage in illegal or unethical business behavior? What if they cook the books?Since you admit that you are entirely unfamiliar with the issue, please refrain from making grandiose pronouncements.

  8. A. I don’t know this story that’s being referred to, but why should David Zuckerman have to defend any decision regarding his business to anyone on this blog or anyone else for that matter?B. Can we stop deifying Madison, et al? Not everything they touched was perfect. 3/5 clause. Need I say more?C. The NPV proposal pledges a state’s votes to the winner of the popular vote. After all, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct” a number of electors, etc. There’s no amending of the constitution – U.S. or Vermont. There’s no destruction of the electoral college involved. States have changed the way they apportion their EC votes in the past, so a whole lot of points defending the EC in this thread are moot.

  10. Real Jimmy here. I don’t condone the statements of fake Jimmy. My vote continues to be reserved for Pearson.

Comments are closed.