Read the story… here.
Watch the video of local reactions… here.

To The Editor,

I read the article about rebranding Woodstock and was mystified that Woodstock, once again, seems to be trying to solve the problems of it’s business community by spending tax dollars.

For more than half a century I have been a customer of retailers in the town of Woodstock. I remember buying fruits and vegetables in a shop which is now part of Bentley’s. I remember when my mother bought all her “good” clothes at Morgan-Ballou. I remember when Fred Doubleday married my mother to my stepfather and sold her a pair of shoes on the way out the door. Businesses, no matter how good they are, come and go. Times change.

For more that a quarter of a century I have made my living as a retailer in the town of Woodstock. My store is not in the village but, like all retailers, I have been affected by economic trends, the aging of the baby boom generation and  changes in how people see themselves as consumers. In addition, I was severely impacted by Tropical Storm Irene which is an economic consideration peculiar to our community. 2011, the year of Irene, was the second worst year my business has ever had and we had to think very hard before we made the commitment to continue. On the other hand, after working hard to reinvent ourselves after Irene, 2012 was our second best year ever and we believe that the coming year shows even more promise. This is not an accident.

We may not be in the village but we have one very important thing in common with the village retailers. We are a shopping destination. People actively decide that they want to shop in our store. We don’t carry milk or bread or anything else people need to survive. We carry things they want. When people are not forced by need to shop with you it becomes very important to offer them a reason to shop with you. You have to make that decision easy or they will shop somewhere else where it is easy… like the Internet.

For all the discussion, Woodstock remains a viable destination for retail shopping. Woodstock attracts thousands of tourists and potential shoppers every year. There are some lovely stores and shops in the village and people from all over constantly talk about how much they enjoy Woodstock. To me, that means the town has successfully branded itself. People know Woodstock. They have a generally favorable perception of Woodstock and they come here expecting to enjoy it and often return. No one hates Woodstock. Other than a few locals frustrated by tourist weekend parking, everyone loves Woodstock.

So… why don’t people leave more money behind when they go home?

Once upon a time Woodstock was a regular Vermont village where local people shopped for everything they needed locally. A few shops also carried specialty items aimed at the tourist trade and most shops had some “high end” items aimed at the summer folk. But, overall, there were enough local customers, as well as tourists, shopping for what they needed to sustain the businesses. Times change. Killington, which used to be a ski area, has become a true resort offering every imaginable thing that people could want in order to keep as many dollars on the mountain as possible. Fewer folks travel to Woodstock as a result. As shopping centers in West Lebanon and Rutland have grown, fewer people see Woodstock as a place to shop for necessities. As a consequence most of the shops now sell, as I do, things people want.

Woodstock has chosen, wisely I believe, to keep the character of the village as traditional as possible without chain stores and outlet malls taking over as has happened in Manchester, Vermont. But it has also become a village whose life blood depends on tourists. The thing about selling to tourists is that they do not have the same buying patterns as local people. Tourists are here to enjoy themselves. They are not worrying about getting to work on time or what they are going to make for dinner. They get up later in the morning unless they have a planned activity and they tend to stay out later in the evening to take advantage of every possible way to enjoy their visit. They come on weekends and during vacation and holiday weeks. They are weather sensitive and often look for something to do on rainy summer days or frigid winter days. They travel in pairs or sometimes in packs but rarely alone. They expect to find things they want to buy and come prepared to buy them.

But here’s the thing… If you are not standing in your store with the door open and the lights on waiting to serve them with a smile when they walk in you won’t sell them a darn thing. My husband and I sometimes get away for a day or two and we go to other tourist towns in New England quite often. If we see something we love in a store window we go in. If they are not open we do not come back the next day. We go on to the next thing. Woodstock needs to be open and welcoming when the tourists want to buy. If that means being open in the evenings when people are arriving in town or patronizing the restaurants, then they need to do that. If it means being open on Sundays when people are looking for those last few hours of enjoyment before they head home, then they need to do that. I can assure you that I have worked every weekend and most summer evenings for the last 28 years. But, in addition to being on the same schedule as the customers, Woodstock needs to welcome the customers. They need to do as good a job every day as they do for the Wassail celebration. They need to plan more activities that draw people through the village like “Where’s Waldo?” did during Bookstock. And they need to make sure that the village business community lives up to the image of a timeless and charming Woodstock that people want to believe in. I believe that, if the merchants in Woodstock want to succeed, they have every opportunity to do so. A beautiful village that remains well loved by generations of visitors, a concerned local population of merchants and business owners and a well known and thought of “brand” should be a recipe for success.

Does Woodstock need to spend $50,000 to rebrand itself? I find it hard to think of a better brand than the one they have. Do they need to spend $50,000 to have someone tell the merchants how to take advantage of what Woodstock has in order to be successful? The information provided might be very interesting. But, in the end, it will be up to the merchants and businesses in the village to decide what they are going to do and no amount of money can guarantee success.

Laura H. Spittle

The Vermont Horse Country Store, South Woodstock

(Editor’s note: This letter did not run in the Feb. 28 edition due to space.)

To The Editor,

Jonathan Swift in his A Modest Proposal suggests in a very rational well-phrased tone that we cannibalize our children. Deliberately ludicrous, of course, but I suppose that would cut down on the school-age population and make a local school unnecessary in Reading. The approach of tearing down all affordable housing will ultimately accomplish the same thing. Affordable defined as housing where families can live who cannot afford anything better.  Not that they don’t want better, but that they can’t afford better.

Will closing the school lower taxes?  Does a billionaire need to have his taxes lowered? Do people who can afford fancy houses and horses and lots of land really need lower taxes? Or do they just want more money to spend for bigger houses, more horses and more land. Are they concerned about our children or their pocketbooks? They say that our children are deprived of social and sports activities. Our children will not be accepted socially by their peers who live in the wealthier town proposed as the “right” place to send our children. Our children won’t get “to play in the game” of all of those wonderful sports activities. They will be the ones who sit on the “bench.”

The thing that holds this town together is the local fire department and their families, but if there is no elementary school in Reading will they go somewhere else where they can be nearer to where their children go to school. Do we want that? Will we choose to cast aside that valuable asset, the cement that holds the town together to please the upper echelon?

Oh dear, I surely hope not.

Hazel H. King

Reading

(Editor’s note: This letter did not run in the Feb. 28 edition to due space reasons.)

First of all, I need to thank everyone from Windsor County District 4-1 (Barnard, Pomfret, part of Quechee and West Hartford) who voted for me in last year’s election and who supported my campaign. If you were hoping for a front-door visit from your local politician during the campaign, I can assure you that my absence was not compelled because I was unchallenged. I was working in Boston and New York for most of campaign season as an editor on a documentary film. In my profession I have to take the work that’s offered and Vermont hasn’t always offered the necessary opportunities, although things seem to be looking bright for the foreseeable future. I moved back to Vermont years ago to avoid working in the cities, but the experience made me appreciate home even more and as a freelance sub-contractor I will pay my taxes to the state of Vermont.

Speaking of taxes, did you know that we recently voted to raise the base property tax rate for FY14 by five cents and that we’re discussing a variety of new taxes to fund current and proposed programs? I was one of only four or five other democrats to vote for amendments that would have enabled a one-time General Fund transfer of $11 million to bring the rate back down a penny and also to commit to reformulating the education finance model by 2015. Both amendments were voted down. I can’t say that I completely understand what’s broken or how to fix it, but I’ve heard from enough of my constituents to know that the current path is unsustainable. There are many variables to consider, including school budget increases, property valuations, and the share that different groupings of property owners contribute, with the ultimate goal of providing equitable access to high-quality education for all. For now, we’ve agreed to come up with a plan by the end of the 2014 session to address an overall rise in education spending that is outpacing the increase in the consumer price index.

It appears that the sugar-sweetened beverage tax is off the table for now, but there may be a rise in fuel taxes to fill the gap in the Transportation Fund and help fund weatherization projects. I’m sure these will be vigorously debated in committees and on the floor, but I’d like to know how further increases on essential household budget items would impact my constituents.

Aside from my work on the Committee on Agriculture, where we are once again tackling the thorny issue of genetically-engineered food and whether or not it should be labeled, I have introduced and sponsored a number of bills that I would like to see advance this session or next. These include providing financial support for school lunches, equal pay for women, placing restrictions on the purchase of ingredients used to manufacture methamphetamine, the cultivation of industrial hemp as an economic booster, slowing down the revolving door between government and the private sector, legal protection from SLAPP lawsuits for citizens who petition town government, approving medical marijuana for PTSD treatment, requiring landlord approval for the installation of satellite dishes on rental property, amending current wastewater statutes to allow for alternative and environmentally-friendly septic designs, and preventing holders of reverse mortgages from foreclosing on surviving spouses whose names do not appear on the mortgage.

As a citizen legislator with a job it can be a challenge to keep up in Montpeculiar sometimes. There seems to be no limit to the amount of knowledge a well-informed and effective legislator can absorb — the encyclopedic volume of statutes, reports and case law, figuring out where all the money comes from, how it’s calculated and where it goes (and why), how the process works (the written and unwritten rules), the strategy of interpersonal relationships with other lawmakers and officials (what some refer to as “deal making”), and, most importantly, getting to know the people in my communities.

Working on behalf of a constituency with a broad array of viewpoints and perspectives has its own challenges, and with every vote I cast I’m taking a position that not everyone will agree with. I hope to make connections with more and more of my constituents so that I can listen to concerns, take suggestions for proposed legislation, and learn from people who have deeper understandings and experiences of issues than I do. I appreciate the responsibility of serving as a conduit between those I represent and the government that represents them. So please feel free to contact me anytime. And if you ever do have the inclination and the time to witness your state government in action (or inaction), let me know and you can be my guest. At the “People’s House” the doors are always open and all citizens can enter unannounced at any time while the legislature is in session to sit in on committee meetings and hearings and to watch debate and procedure on the floor. I encourage you to follow our schedule on the legislature’s website (www.leg.state.vt.us) and come witness issues of interest being discussed and debated.

“The Vermont tradition grapples energetically with the basic problem of human conduct…how to reconcile the needs of the group, of which every man or woman is a member, with the craving for individual freedom to be what he really is.” – Dorothy Canfield Fisher, 1953

I hope to see you at Town Meeting.

Thanks,

Teo Zagar

Windsor 4-1 State Representative

(Editor’s note: This letter was received by the Standard’s Monday deadline, but did not run in the Feb. 28 edition to due space reasons.)

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

To The Editor:
Our nation faces an increasingly dire financial picture as Federal and State government spending spirals out of control.  In the face of ever-growing debt and an endless stream of unbalanced budgets, citizens across our nation have lost faith in the two dominant political parties, each of which has consistently fielded candidates who campaign one way then govern in a completely different fashion.   
With this backdrop a grass roots movement in the form of the T. E. A. Party (Taxed Enough Already) has evolved.  From its onset, the T. E. A. party has been besieged with negative press and baseless unfounded accusations of extremism.  As such an unjustifiable stigma is often accepted by the uninformed as conventional wisdom.
Herald readers should be aware that the T.E.A. Party is guided by three basic tenets: 1) fiscal responsibility; 2) constitutionally limited government; and 3) free markets.  Far from being extreme, these core principles are among the building blocks upon which our nation was created, which led to the greatest standard of living that common people have ever experienced.  But today we have leaders who ignore fiscal responsibility as they run up a $14 Trillion national debt and continue to erode the future of our children and grandchildren.  We have had Presidents, Congressmen and Senators who ignore enumerated powers and assume responsibilities intended for the States.  Those same “leaders” undermine our free market economy with an ever-increasing labyrinth of regulations.  According to reports some 80,000 more pages of regulations were added in 2010 alone.  It is difficult to see how it is “extreme” to oppose these encroachments on our liberties. 
The formation of a local Chapter of the T.E.A. Party was begun last week when 12 concerned citizens from Sharon, South Royalton and Bethel came together to share concerns and ideas.  That group is meeting again on Saturday, April 9, at 6 p.m. at the South Royalton public library.  All are welcome.  The only price of participation is courtesy and intellectual honesty.  Anyone with questions may call me at 763-7906.
Dick Tracy
Sharon

This article first appeared in the April 7th print edition of the Vermont Standard, Woodstock VT.

To The Editor:
The Board of Directors of Union Arena Community Center is excited to announce the hiring of interim Manager Dan French. Dan lives in the Upper Valley and has extensive experience in rink management, having been integral in the process of building Union Arena as well as earning numerous certificates in rink management. In addition, Dan also managed Union Arena for the first years of our Community Center’s operation. We are extremely confident Dan will continue the operation of Union Arena at the highest standards.
The Board would also like to take the time to thank the many community volunteers and our dedicated staff who pitched in to help keep Union Arena operational during the brief transition period between managers. Thank you!
While snow is still covering Woodstock High’s playing fields, Union Arena will continue to provide practice space for the high school spring teams on our sport court. Furthermore, planning is underway for Summer Ice, which is scheduled to be installed by June 17th; Union Arena will host hockey camps this summer as well as various adult hockey leagues, curling, open stick, open skate and much more. Visit our website, unionarena.org, for details of upcoming events at Union Arena.
Many thanks go out to our community members for your past and continued support!
Tod Minotti, on behalf of the Union Arena Community Center Board of Directors
Woodstock

You Never Can Tell, by Chuck Gundersen
If responses thus far to the current Vermont Standard website poll are an accurate indication, public opinion is slowly, but surely, moving back in favor of seeing Vermont Yankee’s license to operate its Vernon plant renewed when it is due to expire in 2012.
Recently the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave Vermont Yankee the green light to operate beyond 2012, despite the disastrous events in Japan. Even so, the Shumlin administration remains adamant about closing the plant. However, the Vermont Legislature is in the unique position of having the last word about closing Yankee – or not.
Public opinion may not be so absolute as that of the Shumlin administration. Before elected officials take the final vote they would do well to thoroughly inquire of their constituents to be sure where they stand on the issue today. From our vantage point, currently 53 percent are telling the Standard’s website poll that the “benefits of renewing the operating license outweigh the risks.” In contrast, 38 percent indicate “the risk is too great,” while another nine percent are undecided.
Obviously, safety is a key consideration. Further, Vermonters cannot condone operators of the facility repeatedly under-reporting dangerous issues there. Whereas the Standard poll asks only about safety aspects, more than that is at stake if Yankee closes next year. Lost jobs, loss of tax revenue to local communities and the State and making up for 20% of Vermont’s electrical energy, which the facility generates, are also important parts of the equation.
The Shumlin administration and those members of the Legislature who have clearly and consistently said Vermont Yankee should be closed down have not sufficiently explained how the State will make up for the non-safety aspects of the situation. Perhaps for safety and poor management reasons the plug should be pulled, but what about the other consequences if Vermont does so? Where are the clear and convincing details needed to make a rational decision? It’s far more than just a safety issue.
Philip C. Camp

By Ross Connelly
Hardwick Gazette
Step right up, folks, put your money on the table and pick a shell. Maybe you will win and maybe you won’t. Take a chance, place your bet. Whether or not a person shall be reimbursed court and attorney’s fees on winning a court case seeking a public record or access to a public meeting should not be subject to a shell game. Unfortunately, Gov. Peter Shumlin is playing such a game with the current effort to change “may” to “shall” in the state’s public records/public access law. Last week, Beth Robinson, his legal counsel, said the administration was leaning toward a “shall, unless…”
Most states have a “Public Right To Know” law or a “Sunshine” law and just about all the laws in the other 49 states are better than Vermont’s. The public’s right to know should be pretty straight forward. The public elects representatives from its own people to act on their behalf as a government. The people should have a right to know what that government is doing. The government is, after all, accountable to the people. That’s what a government “of, by and for the people” means. And sunshine laws exist to make sure the people can see their government in action. Unfortunately, Vermont’s law concerning the public’s right to know lacks clear definitions, does not have built in accountability, does not require the government to enforce it and does not have meaningful penalties. Small wonder the law is at the back of the line when it is compared with the laws in other states.
Vermont’s law was first passed in the mid-1970s. Since then, changes have been made and exemptions to having to follow it have been added – there are now in the neighborhood of 260, according to the state archivist. The law is seldom taken to court so there is minimal case law clarifying it and efforts to make it more people friendly have been beaten back. One reason there is little case law is because the cost of challenging the denial of a public record or access to a public meeting must be shouldered by a person seeking a record or who was shut out of a meeting.
The state’s public records/access law appears to be the only law on the books the state is not required to enforce. So, even though the state stepped in at least four times in the past couple of weeks to investigate alleged violations of the law by police, and has stepped in numerous times in the past year or so to minvestigate and prosecute public officials for misdeeds, the state will not investigate and prosecute alleged violations of the right to know law. The attorney general says his job is to defend the state. Apparently, defending state law when it comes to the public’s right to know doesn’t count. Public officials get a free pass in his eyes.
This winter, both the House and Senate Government Operations committees are spending time looking at bills to amend the law. The House version was introduced at the request of the governor in January. This came on the heels of pledges he made during his campaign to open up government and make it transparent. He said then he wanted to appoint a study committee to examine all the exemptions. The bill as introduced calls for the creation of a position in the office of the secretary of state to address disputes over citizen access to public records. The bill also states a court shall award court and attorney’s fees to a citizen if the court orders the release of a public record that has been denied. Last week, the governor and his legal counsel pulled out some shells and put “shall” underneath one of them. They said they now think the bill should state that the court may not be required to grant court and attorney’s fees if it is shown the denial of a public record or access was made in good faith, or because the holder of the public trust thought the law was clear, or the request was made for commercial gain, or no substantial public benefit would result from the court’s ruling. They leave it up to the judge —  not the law —  to define what all that means.
    Vermont citizens deserve a sunshine law that has clear definitions, accountability, enforcement and penalties. One might think the governorwould agree. Last week, he said, “We don’t have anything to hide.” His legal counsel said, “Public accountability is a huge value.”
So long as the governor pedals backward on his own bill, while claiming he is for transparency, Vermont citizens won’t get a law that increases transparency. Why did the governor, all of a sudden, put shall under a shell? Citizens might ask him what game he is playing.
 Ross Connelly is editor and co-publisher of the Hardwick Gazette and is a past president of both the New England Press Association and the Vermont Press Association.
 
This article first appeared in the March 10th print edition of the Vermont Standard.

To The Editor:
In the interest of justice and decency, Woodstock should approve a resolution to release innocent prisoners held in the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp and welcome them into our community.  These are people who have been held for years, without charges, and even after our government has admitted its evidence exonerates them.  This is a terrible injustice and we should at least declare that it is not being done in our name. The following is a model resolution adopted last year in Leverett, Massachusetts:   
WHEREAS, President Obama had vowed to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay Naval Base by January 2010; and
WHEREAS, many detainees at Guantánamo have been cleared by our government of wrongdoing and have been determined to pose no threat to the United States; and
WHEREAS, many of these detainees cannot be repatriated because they are either stateless or fear the harm awaiting them if returned to their home country; and
WHEREAS, our government has asked other countries to accept cleared detainees but has banned their settlement in the United States; and
WHEREAS, these detainees have suffered unjust imprisonment for many years; and
WHEREAS, the Pioneer Valley has many resources to help such detainees with trauma from their imprisonment; and
WHEREAS, the Pioneer Valley has welcomed in the past many refugees from a variety of traumatic experiences in other countries,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Leverett Town Meeting:
1) Urges Congress to repeal the ban on releasing cleared detainees into the United States and 
2) Welcomes such cleared detainees into our community as soon as the ban is lifted.
And BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this Resolution be sent to the President and Attorney General of the United States, the United States Senators for Massachusetts, and the United States Representative for Massachusetts’ First District.
This is a tiny act of decency in the face of the enormity of official American depredations of the past decade, but if we can’t even do this, what does it say about us and our tortured country?  
William Boardman 
Woodstock 

This article first appeared in the February 24th print edition of the Vermont Standard, Woodstock VT.

Healthy skepticism was the rule of the day at the Vermont Press Association’s annual meeting in Montpelier Thursday, where members of the press met to mete out awards, go over business, and most importantly, discuss the future of open record law in Vermont.
Beth Robinson, legal counselor to Governor Shumlin, was on hand to answer questions — or, in several cases — admit that there isn’t an answer, yet.
On the surface, it seems simple. The state’s constitution clearly provides for every Vermont citizen the right to view and copy public records. This is the crux of research and a mark of a true democracy; freedom of information.
In reality, there’s a legalistic thicket of technicalities that could trip up even the most seasoned journalist, researcher or citizen, and the current law also contains a very particular clause that may have those without financial backing hesitating before delving into situations involving open records in the state.
It’s the significant cost of taking matters to court that is the impetus for the proposed change of wording in the records law. At present, parties who’ve sought and received public records as the result of a lawsuit “may” be awarded court costs —  and word among those who know is that this rarely happens. With the proposed change in wording, the record-seekers “shall” be awarded court costs — which guarantees they’ll be reimbursed for the costs accrued while obtaining the document.
And then there are the exemptions.
The language in the current bill provides for over 260 exemptions —  cases in which the information in question is protected from public view and copying. One may not expect the subscription list of Vermont Life magazine to be a state secret, but it’s protected from public viewing and copying in an exemption. There are other exemptions that may be more obvious; student records at state institutions, for example, or information relating to the identity of library patrons.
Some exemptions seem to be aimed at saving us from ourselves — there is one designed to keep secret the location of archeological sites and underwater historic properties, perhaps out of concern that they’ll be pillaged.
Secretary of State Jim Condos said that his office is ready to work with the Shumlin administration to implement several phases that will make more public records available, accessible and free than at any time in history, and pointed out that a list of exemptions can be found on his web site at www.sec.state.vt.us.
“We need to be saying ‘When in doubt, give it out,’ rather than the current attitude of ‘when in doubt, take me to court!’” Condos said.
One particularly pointed exemption deals with the technicalities of what may be the most frustrating of the exceptions in the open records law when it comes to journalism: the release of information in an ongoing criminal investigation. Vermont State Police public information officer Stephanie Dasaro was on hand to discuss the balance inherent in the relationship between the press and the police.
“We both have the same goals, in a lot of ways,” she said.
Some in the audience made clear their frustration with the muddiness of the current open records bill, and this sentiment came to a head in response to Governor Shumlin’s remarks. Both Shumlin and counsel Beth Robinson confirmed that a strict “May” to “Shall” change might not be in the works. “It might look more like ‘may’ to ‘shall…unless,’” said Robinson. This stance would mandate a judge to award court costs to a party who prevailed in an open records case, unless the judge uses a legal loophole to rule otherwise.
It’s the ‘unless’ that has journalists worried about their ability to obtain records with the knowledge that they won’t be out thousands in court costs.
Is Shumlin’s stance wavering a bit since his campaign, in which he made ‘transparency’ a catchword? It seems so, but only time will tell. He says he is committed to the accessibility of information, and I know this paper, among many others, will be watching closely as the open records bill changes.
Gwen Stanley

This article first appeared in the February 24th print edition of the Vermont Standard, Woodstock VT.

by Kurt Staudter
While We Were Sleeping
“Here we go again with private sector gatekeepers whose job is to limit care and maximize profits. The whole point was to move beyond the employer/insurance company model to a program that actually took care of our healthcare needs in a way that was effective and efficient. Catamount does neither, and 4 years from now we will realize that we have to start all over again. Let’s hope it’s not too late. But for those of us that didn’t get timely affordable care during that time, sadly, it will be.” While We Were Sleeping… May 2006
Catamount Health is DEAD! I just hate being in the position to tell you so, but there it is. Governor Shumlin, who was on a brief hiatus from the legislature when the Catamount Health scheme was hatched between Governor Douglas and Speaker Symington, never liked the plan calling it “financially unsustainable,” proposed to have the 12,500 folks in the program rolled into the state run Vermont Health Access Program. The administration projects about $5 million in savings from this move, and it was also proposed that Catamount customers would see their deductibles go from $500 to $1,200 per year.
As you might expect, MVP and Blue Cross Blue Shield, the private insurance companies that now profit from Catamount Health, were “disappointed.” The more than doubling of the deductable isn’t sitting well with the folks in the program. And finally, the medical community isn’t happy because VHAP doesn’t pay for services as well as the insurance companies.
However, that is what happens when you shake up the status quo – There are winners and there are losers. I know we are all in agreement that business as usual is no longer an option, so let’s all get to work to find an uniquely Vermont solution to this problem. Now no one can say that Governor Shumlin is dragging his feet on getting the ball rolling – The ink wasn’t even dry on the Hsiao report before he supported a House bill. FYI: Keep your eyes peeled this week for some more from Dr. Hsiao when he makes his final report on February 17.
The House Bill H.202 and the companion Senate Bill S.57 has the backing of Governor Shumlin and will be one of the hottest topics in the biennium. Already powerful forces are being marshaled to kill these bills, but the stage is set and all we need is the will of the people to be the first in the nation to address the healthcare crisis. Our Washington delegation is already hard at work getting us the exemptions we’ll need to move forward, and there is a sense among lawmakers that now is the time to get this done.
As you may have heard, there are three options that are being proposed in the Hsiao report: Option 1, a single payer government run system; Option 2, includes a public option that would compete with private insurance; and Option 3, a single payer system that would be administered by the private sector. It is this third option that is being discussed as the path we need to take.
Many questions come to mind right off the bat, but we should wait until the final report is delivered because there are bound to be some changes. What we can comment on right now is the proposed legislation now under consideration.
The bill as it stands now is walking a tight rope and juggling a lot of different issues. On one hand Obamacare has set certain rules that need to be followed by the states. So the bill jumps through those hoops. Also, we are trying to modify our existing health programs to make them more cost effective. Finally, and this is all but unheard of in most healthcare legislation, it tries to look well into the future.
Under Obamacare states are permitted to set up insurance “exchanges.” These are where insurance companies would be pit against one another in order for the consumer to shop for the best deal. With this legislation that is being proposed, Vermont would have a public option in the exchange. Eventually, by 2014 one would hope that the single payer public option would dominate the exchange, finally leaving nothing but the single payer system. This is an ambitious plan, but they forgot one thing: Unlike the Hsiao plans that call for a payroll tax to pay for the new program, these bills in the legislature have no funding mechanism. Governor Shumlin wants to get the provider payments side of the equation under control before he takes on the thornier question of how to fund it. I don’t know about this – Sounds fishy.
Shumlin has his work cut out to sell this whole idea to the public. One would hope that too much time doesn’t elapse before citizens see tangible results. It’s one thing to set up a new system, make us pay for it, and not really get anything out of it: I for one what to see what this means for me and my out-of-state employer. So far there are more questions than answers.
There will be an opportunity to ask those questions at a public hearing on the bills on March 7 from 6pm to 8pm. You can testify at any of the Vermont Interactive Television sites around the state. Sites near us include Springfield, White River Junction and Randolph Center. Check out: www.vitlink.org
Email the author at staudter@sover.net.

Thank You Kathy Wendling
(Read Her Last Column)
In these pages this week, our friend and long-time columnist Kathy Wendling bids goodbye to readers with her final column for Historically Speaking.
Kathy’s tenure at the Standard has been a long and, by her own account, a happy one, and we know many readers will miss her insights.
The collection of Kathy’s columns spans back to 1984, and at one time she was the only Historically Speaking writer, so she had the weekly space to enlighten readers with her vast knowledge of many aspects of the state’s history. Kathy tells us that many times readers from across the country would write to her providing more information on a relative featured in a column, which would then prompt her to delve into more research. Much was learned through collaboration with readers who shared her passion for history. Recently, her discovery of a tax ledger for Woodstock and neighboring towns — dating to 1798 — has brought Kathy much excitement as she was able to share this document with the Woodstock Historical Society.
Kathy’s columns are being digitally archived by volunteer Jordan Engels and will be available at the History Center for generations to come — a valuable resource for anyone interested in Vermont’s past.
She says that she is thankful for the Standard, and likewise we are grateful for her time with us.
Next week we will introduce a new face in Historically Speaking; the folks at Green Mountain Perkins Academy and Historical Association have come forward with a column focusing on South Woodstock’s storied past and the school itself, which was founded in 1848 and closed in 1898. The building stands just as it was in those days, and serves as a resource for anyone researching South Woodstock’s history. We expect many in that village will be interested to read the column.

Ski Responsibly
Recently in the news, we’ve had several reports of skiers who’ve ended up lost on the trails, prompting search-and-rescue crews to flock to their aid.
Most remarkably, this week a New Jersey skier was located and is now recovering in the hospital after a 26-hour search at Killington by Vermont State Police and Killington Ski Patrol. It is not clear from reports whether he purposefully skied out-of-bounds, and we realize that those who leave the trail don’t always do so on purpose, but there have been others across the state and New England who have ended up lost due to choosing to take that risk. It may be tempting to take the route of adventure on the slopes, but it’s not worth the chance of hyperthermia or death.
In a recent release from the the Killington Resort, skiers and riders are reminded to ski and snowboard only on open, designated trails, slopes, freestyle and tree skiing area, to never ski or snowboard alone, and that woods and backcountry areas beyond open and designated trails are not maintained or checked by ski area personnel. Please, ski responsibly.
Gwen Stanley

Inevitably, it has become evident that my participation in Historically Speaking would come to an end—now that that time is here! So, as we move into February 2011, I am forced to recognize that day has come. Space permitting, I will review how and why it all began. Back in 1984, this newspaper announced a special edition to celebrate its 131st anniversary and I contacted the editors to explain that I would like to provide a history of how it all began. (As many or you know, local history had long been a hobby of mine.) The result was a handsome supplement published, I believe, in the spring of that year featuring my article detailing the history of this newspaper and its predecessors in Woodstock. I could not have known then, but this move lead to the creation of a weekly column emphasizing not only Woodstock’s history but of the towns in our area as well.
Thus it is that I went on creating approximately 750 word stories regularly until recently when, to give me a break, my editors found two others to spell my chores. What a good job was done by Jack Anderson, headman at the Woodstock Historical Society ‘s History Center and Carol Mowry from Hartland joined the cause, providing well-told tales of their own! Now, faced with the inevitable, I am most reluctant to say goodbye. I am delighted this column will continue its focus on local history! Thank you, Phil and Gwen!
Another fascinating piece of news for me: With the assistance from the Historical Society, the Vermont Standard and no doubt, many others, most of my articles will become available to re-read at a public place. They are available in the Vermont Standard collection at the Woodstock Historical Center, but only by lifting heavy annual bound volumes! This effort is just beginning with Jordan Engel at the helm. I am delighted that this mammoth effort is going forward. I have learned a lot from those weekly efforts but do not, at the moment, begin to remember the details! I will be happy to share this earlier research with the loyal readers I have had the pleasure of getting to know over the last two plus decades.
How nice to discover that there are so many loyal readers who share with me their fascination with history…and with this their local paper. As we have discovered, even when local area readers move out of the area, they often subscribe to this paper, taking their hometown with them. I have shared some fascinating stories received from this group of ex-Woodstockers and am most grateful that they wrote or even called on me later. I shall not mention most of them by name, lest I leave some one out. But among the ones mentioned in the last year: I must mention Donna Gay D’Addario from Fairfield, Ct. who even sent me a book she had written about her Woodstock great-grandmother. Bessie (Wheeler) Gay.
I am most thankful for the Vermont Standard and all the opportunities it has given me over the years—and to the greater community as a whole including South Pomfret where I spent 43 years—across from Suicide Six. Ironically, today I am in a beautiful building exactly 100 years old when I was born in 1932! Across from me, the building where Dick and I and the children lived at 29 Pleasant St just down the street from where I lived with Hillary Underwood at 21 Pleasant and in the opposite direction, just down from the Inn (the New England Inn in those days) that my husband Dick and I owned the last ten years of his life—he died in 1975. So, there you have it — my life has come full circle, and I have been blessed to have shared it with you all, my readers. Thank you each and every one who have made it so wonderful. I assure you that I retire with many happy memories, Life has indeed, been a pleasure — my best to all of you. I could not have guessed what awaited me when I came to work at the Woodstock Inn in 1953. I shall miss my column, but cherish all the pleasure it’s meant for me.
And so, “My best to all of you, until we meet again.”

To the Editor:
It is with great sadness that I write this letter. Having worked at the Ottauquechee Health Center as a physician off and on for years, I feel that the recent letters to the editors do not do justice to the staff at the center. I could be trite and say they are dedicated, warm, compassionate, empathetic, etc., which is all true, but I think it boils down to the fact that they really care for everyone who walks through the door.
I cannot comment on the specific incidents that have recently been quoted, but I can say that that’s certainly not been my experience.
When I first worked there we saw patients 24 hours a day. That was 25 years ago; times have changed. As medical professionals we have a “Standard of Care” that we all try to follow. Giving advice over the phone to a patient we have never seen before is not safe.
The Physicians and Nurse Practitioners on call at night have access to OHC patient records so they can give informed advice; this cannot be done if they do not know the patients.
Asking a patient to come to the Health Center at night is not safe. The Health Center is not set up as an emergency room, as is the case with most Community Health Centers. If you need care in the middle of the night you want the best available and that is DHMC or Mt. Ascutney. They can do extensive evaluations, which is most likely what is needed in the middle of the night. Stopping at the health center wastes valuable time and time is often of the essence in such a situation.
I hope we can focus on how lucky we are to have such a facility in our community and value all the care they give us and not dwell on what they do not and should not do.
Judith Hills, MD, MS
South Woodstock

Of the many polls we’ve offered, two in particular have eclipsed all others in terms of response. Those two were the one which dealt with bullying in local schools and the other was by far the most responded to of all, asking people how they felt about moving the Woodstock snow dump to enable recreational and commercial development to take place in the East End.
It should be said from the outset that our poll results are hardly a precise indicator of the opinions of all persons in our ten-town circulation area, but they do suggest how the population might respond. Thus both poll results should be taken seriously into consideration.
With the poll on bullying, we made it clear that this is a national issue, but that local schools are not exempt. We suggested that action was needed now, and reaction was immediate.
Fifty-five percent of all respondents indicated, “Understanding and solving the problem should be a community-wide effort.” Next, 23 percent responded, “It isn’t an unusual situation – it’s just kids being kids.” However, the next 14 percent indicated, “Yes, there is a local problem which should be seriously dealt with.”
Eleven percent indicated “I am the parent of a child who is regularly bullied” and a like number responded “Let school administrators and staff handle any problems—it’s their job.” A final 5 percent said “I need a better understanding of bullying if I am to comment at all.” (People could respond to more than one of the six questions, but were prevented from taking the poll twice, which would have skewed the results.)
We were encouraged to learn recently that at least two community groups may be meeting soon to discuss the issue of bullying in local schools.
When our latest completed poll asked Woodstock voters, “Do you favor the relocation of the snow dump from the “Jungle” portion of the East End enabling recreational and commercial activities there,” response was the greatest of any of our polls to date.
The vote choices were simple – yes, no, or undecided. Again, responses are not a certainty of how Village and Town voters will act at their respective annual meetings in March to approve of moving the snow dump or not, but the overwhelming poll results suggest decision makers should give serious consideration to the results as the community seeks to provide additional recreational facilities and commercial development which would generate welcomed tax revenues.
An overwhelming 83 percent of all respondents favored relocation of the snow dump, 13 percent were not in favor of it and 4 percent were undecided.
So much for the desire by many to relocate the snow dump. Should there be a decision to move forward (by Town and Village voters) many hurdles remain, including needed land purchase, permits and a salable game plan.
Readers are encouraged to participate in the Standard’s future website polls. Choices and responses are important when organizations and officials need to know how citizens feel about certain issues. And, responses are always confidential. People need not identify themselves when “voting.” Just go to www.thevermontstandard.com to express your views.
Phil Camp

To The Editor:
I was horrified at a recent dinner party among a group of friends by the accounts of bullying at our local schools. In particular, a family that has a child in each of the levels of school, and all of them bullies. I was even more horrified that after having notified school officials of these bullies, police called and all the paperwork filed, that no one is acting on this.
While I do not have school-aged children now, my children will soon be school aged and I am terrified about the lack of supervision I see at the High School/Junior High and now the bullying taking place. My work is very close to WUHS and I am constantly seeing children wandering at all times of the day, young people, not two feet off school grounds smoking and cars flying past at outrageous speeds, speakers blasting… So my question is this: who is watching our children when they are at school?
With all of the recent suicides and bullying reports coming out of the “big” cities, I hope that in our small community we can get a grasp on the situation at hand and end this poor excuse for behavior before tragedy strikes our small towns. I hope that we, as a community, can reunite and begin to rethink how and what we are teaching our children. This is an epidemic in our time and it is just sad that this has finally affected us. Bullying is not new, nor will it ever go away, but children are being physically harmed and the people that we have entrusted our children’s safety to are not acting!
Jennifer Kirkman
North Pomfret

This week’s editorials: both topics which can be found in detail in our November 11th print edition includes:

December 7, 1941: Recalling the 69th Anniversary of the devastating surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, drawing America into WW II.
A call to replace wars with improved communications, compromise and common sense.

Thanks Chippers: Thanking Chippers for their continuing public service and announcing the Standard’s plans to recognize other such contributions to the community in upcoming print and online editions of the Vermont Standard.
Do you know someone who should be recognized for their continued community involvement? Let us know. Comment below. or email pcamp@thevermontstandard.com

To write a letter to the editor:
Fax 802-457-3639.
Write or visit us at 466 Route 4 West, P.O. Box 88, Woodstock, VT 05091 USA.
Email us at letters@thevermontstandard.com.

Please feel free share your thoughts. We invite you to comment, leave your thoughts, whether you agree or disagree we would like to know.
Every comment is reviewed prior to publication and will display under an article if/when it has been approved.