Wallstrom steps up

Alderman David Wallstrom wants another term on the board after all.

The freshman alderman had been among those up for re-election this year who were on the fence about running, but Tuesday he was circulating a petition to get his name on the March ballot.

Wallstrom joins fellow-incumbents Tom DePoy (who also spent some time in limbo), Charles Romeo and Jon Kiernan in seeking new terms.

Reviewing the results

Well, I predicted the Aldermen wrong, or at least one of them. Mattison had signs up, Donahue didn't. Mattison had some name recognition and something of an organization behind him, Donahue didn't.

It turned out Donahue was campaigning a little bit harder than he initially let on. It still doesn't sound like he did much, by his description, but by the box score it looks like he did enough.

Tomorrow's Herald will have a story examining whether the aldermanic race could go to a recount. Spoiler alert: not according to the city clerk.

I'm not sure what to make of the budget results. The margin was much narrower than last year, but significantly wider than two years ago. It's going to be a while before we can reasonably say what a "typical" budget vote is. 

Prediction time

As with last year, these are not endorsements but my predictions as a gambler. A hypothetical gambler, that is, as they don't pay me enough to go around losing money by betting on things.

I'll wager that all four incumbents in the contested race will return to the board and John Mattison will claim the fifth spot, with Gary Donahue not terribly far behind. I have heard suggestions that the margin between fifth and sixth will be tight enough to merit a recount. We'll see.

I expect the city and school budgets to pass. I know there has been a campaign to defeat them, but the budgets have passed by comfortable margins since they started going to the voters and I have trouble seeing such modest increases -- 3.4 percent for the city and 1.7 percent for the school -- provoking enough ire for a defeat.

The bridge bond and paving money will also likely pass -- Rutland voters have a strong history of supporting infrastructure projects -- as will the social service agency appropriations.

In a few hours we'll see how I did. 

Covering debates

As I prepare to head out to tonight's aldermanic forum at the library, I want to peel back the curtain and give you good folks a glimpse at how the journalistic sausages are made. How’s that for a mixed metaphor?

Our deadline for the PEG-TV forum last Wednesday night was extended to 10 p.m. so that we could get something on the event into Thursday’s paper. That does not mean I had until 10 to write it. No, the story had to be ready to go to print by 10, and before that happened, two different people had to read it. They also had to read it slowly enough to have a reasonable chance at catching all the boneheaded mistakes I made rushing to write it.

So, I walked out of PEG-TV at around 9 p.m. knowing I had about 30 minutes to get back to the office and write the story, and praying that the train I was hearing wasn’t blocking off the front of Howe Center.

Because the entire paper was being held up for this story, the rest of page was designed with a convenient hole for the staff to plug my piece into once I finished it. This meant I had to write to a set size. The size in question, I was told beforehand, was 18 inches, about 500 words. With nine candidates, I would only be able to devote about 50 words to each of them. In the midst of writing, I was asked if I could bring in the story in the 330-420 word range. I complied, and you read the result last week.

You can see how I do with tonight's debate in, you know it, tomorrow's Rutland Herald.

Quote of the night

"I'm one of those people who will get an issue, study it and beat it to death until I know it inside and out. Just because I don't know something tonight doesn't mean I won't understand it tomorrow."

-Aldermanic candidate Gary Donahue, on the fact that he lacked answers to a couple of the questions at last night's forum. He later added, referring to the sitting board "They're lacking something I have to offer -- irreverance and a pretty wild imagination."

Watch this space, and the Monday column, for more from the forum.

On revotes

Since Randal posted to his blog referring everyone to me on whether there might be another vote on Giorgetti, I figured I'd better get something up here.

State law allows for a second vote on a ballot item if 5 percent of registered voters sign a petition calling for one. A town can raise that bar to 20 percent if the voters so decide.

Revotes are not uncommon in the smaller towns. Hubbardton had one for a fire station bond in 2009. Tinmouth revoted its swtich to Australian ballot in 2007. Middletown Springs had two revotes by petition in 2006. One of the first ongoing stories I covered was an issue with the town office in Castleton that included a petitioned revote.

I cannot recall ever seeing one in Rutland, and I know that because of the charter, a lot of things that apply to the towns don't necessarily apply here. I asked Mayor Louras if he knew anything about it last night and he didn't.

I'm waiting on a call back from City Attorney Andrew Costello. Hopefully he can shed some light.

Predictions, Part III

So, the aldermen...

I would say DePoy, Romeo and Kiernan are safe bets based on name recognition, word on the street and the number of Kiernan signs I see around. Plus, Kiernan's showing when he ran for Legislature.

I think Sargeant will hold his seat and Barrett will probably keep his. The incumbents in general seem to have tied their fate to that of the rec center, and since I'm predicting that will pass, I should probably predict they will return.

I'm not sure whether to think the sixth seat will go to Wallstrom, Bixby or Pemrick. Pemrick probably has the name recognition of the three, but I'm not sure how broad his actual support is. If I had to guess, I'd go with Wallstrom using the same rec center-centric logic I used above, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

If I'm right about the effect of the rec center on the vote but wrong about whether it passes, that'll just screw everything up.

Obviously, that means I'm not expecting White or Wade to make the cut. White's record in previous elections shows a pretty consistent trend while Wade, though he remains on the ballot, withdrew.

Predictions, Part II

Continuing what I started in the last post:

From the moment they went on the ballot, I expected the charter changes dealing with the treasurer and assessor's offices to fail. That hasn't changed. My reasoning remains from my prediction when it was the mayor's office in November -- Vermonters tend to prefer more voting to less voting. I don't see the city giving up it's right to choose who sits in those offices.

I'm betting the disciplinary articles will pass. There was a lot of outrage over Det. Schauwecker's paid suspension last year and I don't think I spoke to anyone today who voted against those.

On the other hand, I'm expecting the police commission to stay the same. The impression I get is that the hybrid structure the Board of Aldermen proposed is the sort of compromise that pleases neither side. 

Predictions, Part I

It's close enough to the time the polls close I'm going to start putting up my expections on how the city votes will turn out.

Remember, this has nothing to do with how I voted. These are my picks as a gambler -- or, they would be if I could afford to gamble.

I think the rec center is going to squeak by. I offer the following justifications:

1. I've talked to a number of people who say they voted against last year's version but support this year's.

2. I've seen a few lawns with both a "Support the Rec Center" sign and a Jon Kiernan sign. Given that Jon is one of the candidates who has spoken out against the rec center, I take that as an indication its support amongst voters is broader than its support amongst candidates.

3. If the chamber board is a decent representation of the Rutland business community, that endorsement should also indicate a decent base of support.

Then again...

Remember what I wrote earlier about the weather probably meaning a higher turnout?

Well, not so much, according to the people I talked to at the polls. The traffic in and out looked pretty slow when I stopped by and the folks holding signs outside said they'd seen fewer voters than they expected.