On the assumption that attention spans and (especially) appetites for solemn matters will be low this semi-holiday morning, the discussion of a rather solemn subject will be delayed until Wednesday, leaving today open for: a couple of updates; a political note or two; the posing of a question.

Update One: The one reporter who was planning to go to the Democratic Party fund-raiser a week ago Sunday ended up not going after all. Neither, as earlier acknowledged, did the News Guy, despite having made a stink about the Dems (subsequently reversed) decision to close the event.

But the point holds. When a public figure speaks at an event open to everyone (willing to pay) at a public accommodation, reporters ought to be given reasonable access because the public figure might say something the public should know.

Update Two: Newport Mayor Paul Monette, apparently aware that his city might become the laughing stock of the whole country (think what Jon Stewart might have done with this) used his veto power to squelch a city council decision banning the use of any French words on signs welcoming visitors to town. (See A Vermont House of Commons, June 28).

Bienvenue, nos amis.

Political Note One: The June 25 post, What the Polls Mean (and What They Don’t) noted that a clear picture of how the Democratic primary for governor shaped up wouldn’t be available until later this month, when WCAX-TV (Channel 3) was scheduled to make public results from a survey by the Research 2000 firm, which has been polling for the station for years.

Don’t hold your breath.

For reasons far too complicated (and legally treacherous) to explore here in detail, Research 2000 may not be polling in Vermont soon, or perhaps ever. After questions were raised about how the firm conducted its surveys, one of its major customers, the liberal web site Daily Kos, sued Research 2000, accusing it of “fraudulently manufacturing phony results.”

In response, Research 2000 president Del Ali (who has been cooperative and candid with the News Guy in the past) called the allegations in the suit “pure lies.” However the legal case gets untangled, the scheduled Vermont polling seems to be on hold. Channel 3 News Director Anson Tebbetts said Friday he was “still looking into it,” and had not been able to reach Ali by phone.

“We’ve used this guy for a very long time,” said Tebbetts. “It’s hard to read what’s really going on.”

Political Note Two—Despite the disinclination to pick on a campaign which is going nowhere anyway, some of the material emanating from Dan Freilich is too tempting to ignore.

As most voters probably do not know, Freilich is challenging the renomination U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy in the Democratic primary. On Freilich’s web site the other day, he proclaimed that one of his “three basic but rarely adhered to political principles” would be “country ahead of party (no ‘automatic caucasing’.)”

“Caucusing?” OK, The News Guy will plead guilty to pedantry here, but this was not an oral slip of the tongue. It was written, and, as one of merely three “basic principles,” should have been checked over.

But that’s not all. Freilich advocates a single-payer, government-run universal health insurance system, a perfectly reasonable position which many Vermonters (maybe even most) share. Interviewed on Vermont Public Radio’s Vermont Edition the other day, he said that President Obama and Democrats in Congress, including Leahy, should have held out for such a system rather than passing the health care law which just (partly) took effect.

Even if they did not immediately have the votes for a single payer system, Freilich said (not in these exact words; the News Guy does not take notes while driving, and no transcript is available)  Obama and the Democrats could have held off and arranged a “discussion” with the American people which might have led to adoption of a single-payer system.

They could have? With a well-disciplined opposition party determined to block passage of anything? With a media culture shaped to no small extent by a faction which has slipped the bonds of rationality, if not sanity?

Not hardly. Folks who put themselves forward, however futilely, for major office, ought to behave like grown ups.

Now the question: Can the government of Vermont find its behind with both hands?

The question is inspired, if not required, by recent revelations that high-ranking officials have, quite simply, fouled up. For years, however some Vermonters may have disagreed with Gov. Jim Douglas’s policies, few argued that he didn’t run a tight ship. Of late, that ship has sprung a few leaks.

First, the news that the sex offender registry does not include the names of some people who should be on it, and apparently does include the names of some who should not be on it.

Second, state officials failed to meet a federal deadline for arranging health insurance for low-income people with medical problems.

Third is the continuing failure of the State Hospital for the mentally ill to meet federal standards, a failure that has cost the state millions in federal aid and will cost another $9.7 million this year, according to former State Sen. Jim Leddy.

Ok, there are extenuating circumstances. The Federal Government is not always the world’s most flexible outfit. The sex offender registry is a relatively new operation. Finding an acceptable alternative to the State Hospital situation ain’t easy.

Still, these are the problems state governments are supposed to solve, especially when not solving them costs money.

At the dependably anti-Douglas web site Green Mountain Daily, Julie Waters writes that these mistakes are the result of a government led by “people who don’t believe in government.”

A plausible contention, neither confirmable nor refutable. But Jim Douglas is no Tea-partier, nor did he appoint any to high office. Just as likely is that, as the Douglas Administration heads into its last months, its department heads are tired, perhaps bored, and no doubt looking for their next jobs. It can be distracting.

That’s a possible explanation, not an excuse.

Then of course there’s the simple politics of the matter. The constituencies being ill-served, the poor who are either physically or mentally ill, don’t have much clout.

Especially the mentally ill, who, as Leddy said in the Burlington Free Press column he wrote about the State Hospital the other day, remain stigmatized.

Sometimes — stigmatized, powerless and frustrated — mentally ill people take their own lives. As it happens, in Vermont, perhaps the healthiest state in the union, the suicide rate is higher than the national average.

The somber subject to be dealt with for the rest of the week.

Parliament: Way back when

The News Guy did not go to the Vermont Democratic Party fundraiser in Burlington last night despite suggestions – if not taunts – from some folks that he was obligated to do so, having shamed the Dems into opening the event to reporters.

The shamer/taunter set had a point, but 140 miles of round-trip driving just to show the flag seemed excessive from an energy-efficiency standpoint.

Two of them actually: excessive petroleum use by the automobile, excessive use of already-depleted energy reserves in the body. Word is that at least one other reporter did attend the event to hear what Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts had to say, and that said reporter’s account will appear on the VT Digger web site.

Last Wednesday’s post (What Are They Hiding? Just scroll down) calling attention to the (subsequently reversed) Democratic decision to keep reporters out of the fundraiser noted that even from the party’s selfish perspective, that original decision was “really, really dumb.”

Let it not be thought, however, that in Vermont these days one has to be a Democrat to take actions falling into the “really, really dumb” category. Just take a look at what the movers and shakers of the Northeast Kingdom city of Newport did last week.

(And, no, don’t think that just because you might live far from Newport, this particular really, really dumb move doesn’t affect you; it could cost you a few bucks even if you live in Castleton).

What the Newport City Council did was to decide not to welcome visitors from Quebec, or at least not welcome them in French.

Put Bienvenue on a sign? Sacre bleu, non, replied the City Council, as reported by the Newport Daily Express.

“Why can’t we put Spanish on the sign coming from the South?” asked one Alderman, a question which may or may not have had some rational foundation.

Another complained that French-speaking Quebecois are so anti-English that “the English die up there.”

Assuming loose standards for “rational foundation,” this qualifies. Francophone Quebecois do de temps en temps take this French-only business trop loins.

Still, it is unlikely that the folks in the tourism/marketing/economic development department would recommend a deliberate decision not to welcome people in their own language. Having heard about Newport’s anti-bienvenue policy, some Quebecers might decide to spend their money this summer in New Hampshire or New York, or maybe not to cross the border at all.

And who could blame them?

Now that we’re in the international mode, and before proceeding to matters of far greater substance for the rest of the week, let’s finish the recent contemplations about the possibility of altering some of the basics of Vermont governance.

Again, these are not proposals, just stuff that might be interesting to talk about. Last week and the week before, the interesting stuff was a one-house legislature, such as Nebraska has. Today, inspired by the sentiments of one reader’s comment, a more radical suggestion: Why not think about making Vermont the first state to establish a parliamentary system?

Maybe because it could be unconstitutional. The Constitution (Article IV, Section 4) guarantees “to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” and by some definitions, a parliamentary system does not qualify.

But by others, it does, and every once in a while, a writer or scholar will suggest that the whole country convert. On its face, it seems a sensible suggestion. Almost all of the world’s democracies operate under a parliamentary system, and most of them seem to be governed at least as well as this one.

Those writers and scholars have not inspired a movement. The only organization that comes close to being a pro-parliamentary advocacy group is known as “US Parliament,” which is based (one will not be surprised to learn) in California, and which barely qualifies as an organization. Even Paul C, Manuel is not familiar with it. http://www.usparliament.org/parpar.htm

That’s significant because Manuel, a political scientist, co-wrote (with his wife, political scientist Anne Marie Cammisa)  Checks And Balances?: How A Parliamentary System Could Change American Politics (Westview Press, 1999 ) .

Professor Manuel, now at Georgetown University in Washington, said he and his wife were not advocating that the US switch to a parliamentary system, merely examining the pros and cons. In fact, he seems to conclude that the cons outweigh the pros. After all, he said, in more than 200 years, “the US has never had a government collapse.”

Still, there are advantages to the parliamentary system. Government in Britain, he said, has been “more responsive,” if “less stable” than its U.S. counterpart.

Because of the uncertainty, it might be interesting if one small, relatively civilized, state (that would include this one) decided to perform the experiment. If the states are, as Justice Louis Brandeis said, “the laboratories of democracy,” maybe one state would perform a service by switching to a parliamentary system. If it succeeded, other states would emulate it. If not, the first state could switch back.

Under a parliamentary system, Vermonters would not choose a governor. They would simply vote for legislators. The party that controlled the legislature would choose its leader to head the executive branch. In most parliamentary system, this leader is called the prime minister, but Vermont could continue to use the term ‘governor.’

One advantage of a parliamentary system is that the government, as long as it retained the support of a legislative majority, and presumably therefore of the people, could really get things done.

This is, of course, also the system’s biggest disadvantage. The government might do too much. But if any government did too much in the opinion of the electorate,  that government might fall, requiring a new election.

Would that be more power to the people? Or too much politics?

The power of the majority might also be constrained because legislative majorities could be harder to come by. Parliamentary systems tend to inspire the growth of minor parties, which often win seats in the legislature. Then the bigger parties have to form coalitions with them in order to get enough support to form a government.

This is precisely why some people think a parliamentary system might be a good idea. They’re the folks dissatisfied with the two parties and the powerful if unofficial two-party system which effectively invalidates minor parties.

Granted, all of this might be idle speculation, cotton candy for the mind, as someone once described theoretical musings about unlikely prospects.

But look at it this way: Thinking about making Vermont the first parliamentary system in America is no sillier, and less objectionable, than thinking about having Vermont secede, an absurdity which seems to have a  devoted (if very small) following in these parts.