Miro Weinberger January 22, 2012

The following is a faithfully transcribed conversation between me (Haik Bedrosian) and mayoral candidate Miro Weinberger recorded at The Bagel Cafe and Deli in the Ethan Allen Shopping Center on North Avenue on January 22, 2012 between 11am and 12pm. Weinberger serves on the Burlington airport commission and is the Democratic nominee for mayor of Burlington.

HB: What would you like to do for the city of Burlington?

MW: Well, first of all I'd like to put the city's finances back in order. I think we've really had a rough six years with Burlington Telecom and other financial issues and the first order of business has to be putting them back in order, putting us on some more stable ground, restoring the credit rating. Without that we're not going to be able to make progress on a whole host of other fronts that the city needs to make progress on.

HB: You've been on the airport commission for... I think you're the longest serving member on the airport commission?

MW: That's correct... since 2003.

HB: So let's talk about what's going on with the airport...

MW: Yup.

HB: You pointed me to an article actually, by John Briggs that was written in June. At that time he reported that the airport owed seven and a half million dollars to the cash pool because it didn't get bonds to fund its parking garage in advance of building it. The chair of the airport commission said in that article... and I guess that's... what's his name... um... Who is the chair of the airport commission?

MW: Gene Richards.

HB: Gene Richards. Yeah. He said that Jonathan blew it... meaning Jonathan Leopold. And then Jonathan fired back and said “the board of finance and the city council relied on airport management and the commission.”

MW: Yeah.

HB: Um... did the CAO blow it as the airport commissioner said, or did the airport commission and the management blow it? Or did the board of finance blow it? Or did the voters blow it by not approving a bond when it was floated in 2009? Who blew it?

MW: Well it certainly wasn't the voters, let's start there. The voters didn't approve the general city obligation bond in 2009, but in 2010 they did a approve an airport revenue bond. The idea with the airport revenue bond, as opposed to a general obligation bond is that there's a layer of insulation between... the voters aren't on the hook. The full faith and credit of the city are not behind an airport revenue bond. Just the airport revenues are.

HB: OK, but that didn't solve the problem...

MW: Well, I think it's important. To understand what went wrong, you have to understand for starters, it was an airport revenue bond. The voters were not supposed to be at risk... general city revenues were not supposed to be put at risk.

HB: The garage was supposed to pay for itself with its own revenue, right?

MW: The garage... as port of the airport... was supposed to pay for itself. The airport commission did, in fact, like the voters support such a bond. Where things started to go off the tracks... the main place it really went off the tracks is the administration went forward and started building the garage without that airport revenue bond in place and in fact- knowingly, as we know now, without any chance of putting the airport revenue bond in place for an extended period of time. That was the main mistake and that was the administration's.

HB: So was it the administration and the board of finance?

MW: The board of finance made a vote on it, certainly.

HB: The commission didn't vote to go ahead with the building?

MW: We were never given a vote. The only vote we ever made was to go out and get a bonding. We were told we would get a second vote and they would come back to us and get a commencement of construction vote but it didn't play out that way. There was never another vote.

HB: Do you believe there should have been a bond before construction started?

MW: Either a bond or... in some cases in the past the... there's some additional expense in taking out the full bond right at the beginning of a project, so... this is a point that Jonathan has made that it may not be the most efficient financing right from the start to finance the whole construction with the bond...

HB: Ok.

MW: That's a distraction though. What they should have known before starting is: when construction is completed the bond's sitting there ready and there are purchasers of the bond waiting, that this is a fincancable bond. In all other previous city projects that I'm aware of when there was a delay in the final bonding for that recent... for efficient construction financing it was after months and months of work with lenders, with the bond market- to know that in fact he bond is going to be purchased at the end of the day.

HB: And Jonathan just didn't do it?

MW: No. Not only did he not do it, there was a report that he had, that was not disclosed, it was a draft report, it was never finished, which was a sort of shocking thing in itself. And it was not disclosed to the commission. It was actually mischaractarized to the commission- that said 'you're not going to be able to get bonding in place. The city has- the airport has- a problem paying interest on its current bonds. There's a major problem here...

HB: Right. Moody's downgraded the airport's credit rating, partly because it participates in the city's cash pool...

MW: Yup.

HB: Would you support the airport divesting itself from the city's main cash pool and keeping its finances totally separate?

MW: I think it's an interesting point... and I think it's a very difficult thing to do at this point given the airport's current finances, but I think optimumly yes. I think... as we now painfully know because of Burlington Telecom, having our enterprises linked to the city's finances through the cash pool does create the opportunity for real taxpayer liability that's not supposed to be there... I think I understand why that cash pool was created, and the efficiencies it created but I do think we now are aware of the risks to it as well.

HB: So let's say you do become mayor- what do you do as mayor to replenish the cash pool of the funds that the airport owes it?

MW: Those have in fact been replenished.

HB: They have?

MW: Yeah.

HB: How? Since June? Since Briggs wrote the article?

MW: Yeah. Shortly after that there was a... something called a 'bond anticipation note' was floated by the airport...

HB: Ah right...

MW: ...and it did go through and at this point I think... It was fully repaid, and now there's a small balance, or a smaller balance at least between the airport and the city.

HB: ...and in May, you and Peter Plumeau argued to create a detailed memo to send to the board of finance that they could use in deciding whether to go forward with a bond anticipation note...

MW: That's right.

HB: Why didn't that pass out of the airport commission?

MW: I'm not sure. We had a lot of discussion over a number of meetings, as maybe you've seen- and we could never agree on exactly... there was broad agreement that we should tell the city council about the situation we were facing. There was lack of agreement over the wording of such a memo and...

HB: That's unfortunate.

MW: ...You know they were public deliberations that we had about the memo, so in the end sort of a 'minority report' almost ended up, essentially, getting to the city council...

HB: That's cool. And Kurt Wright was on the board of finance at that time.

MW: That's true.

HB: Well ok- speaking of Kurt Wright, he's floated the idea of potentially, maybe asking the voters if they want to sell Burlington Electric Department. When the idea was first floated, the other Democratic candidates who were at the time vying for the Democratic nomination, panned it immediately as a bad idea. You were a little more open to the idea than the others. You said 'it would be irresponsible to take any serious idea off the table.'

MW: Yeah.

HB: Then more recently you said... something to the effect of 'it wouldn't be responsible to put it on the table until we had more information about how much it was worth, how much we could get for it...'

MW: But those are consistent opinions, you know...

HB: They are. Technically. Logically. But of course “the table” is an imaginary concept.

MW: [Laughter]

HB: There is no real “table.” So is it an idea worth looking at, or not?

MW: I think we have difficult choices ahead of us. I think the last six years with Bob Kiss have left us in a place where finances are in trouble. Where... a lot of the options ahead of us are pretty unpleasant. Given that, I have thought, that we can't just completely take the sale of BED off the table- as unappealing as that is, because the other options, when we fully have our arms around what our liability is- which is not clear today- you know we have this BT liability standing out there that could result in another 33 million dollars, potentially, of problems for the city... There's a whole host of things, I certainly don't feel until I'm in the mayor's office, have my team in place and, kind-of, thoroughly reviewed the books with a team actively reviewing them- I don't think we know exactly what we're facing financially- and given that I don't think it's responsible to say the sale of BED can't happen.

HB: Well let's say we did sell the electric department to a private company, doesn't that introduce the possibility of higher rates so that the company can make a profit, whoever it is?

MW: There's still controls against that. It would still be a regulated public utility- well, it wouldn't be a public utility, but it would be a regulated...

HB: It would be regulated by the public service board.

MW: ...monopoly essentially. I've seen mixed reports about whether the other, for example, power rates, in the state are higher or not. But I mean listen, I want to be clear. I don't want to sell BED. I think it's allowed us to be a leader in terms of renewable energy, in terms of energy efficiency- And I do think the way Kurt has just sort of thrown it out there without anything other than saying 'I've heard a bunch of business people in town say it's worth more than 100 million.' And even after I pushed on it and Seven Days pushed on it, without doing anything to respond- to even start to talk about how he'd address the regulatory questions about whether a sale is even possible at all- I kinda stand by my initial reaction which is it's a half-baked idea and he's done nothing further to kinda bring it to rightness since.

HB: He could have, as a city councilor proposed that it go on the ballot now.

MW: It's true.

HB: Why do you think he didn't do that?

MW: That speaks to a bigger question of Kurt now trying to run as the guy who's gonna turn the city around.

HB: Do you think he brought it up just purely as an attention grabber? As a campaign talking point?

MW: I'm hoping you get to sit down with him and ask him why he raised it.

HB: Yeah... we're having scheduling problems...

MW: I can't get inside his head, but clearly he saw this as a campaign opportunity, I would say.

HB: Kurt's been throwing out the number 48 million in terms of the underfunding of the pension system...

MW: Yeah...

HB: When I talked to Tim Ashe here, he sounded pretty credible on the numbers. He said that 48 million dollar number comes from a 2010 Buck Associates audit, and that in his opinion it's probably less now, we just don't have a newer audit.

MW: That turned out not to be right. There's a newer audit out now as of a week and a half ago, two weeks ago, and the estimate is now 55 million.

HB: 55 Million. So when it was 48 million it was funded at about 73%, now...

MW: I haven't seen a new estimated percentage...

HB: What did you it was?

MW: My understanding is 55 million.

HB: 55 million. Wow.

MW: Yup.

HB: Because the markets have been tanking or what?

MW: There's multiple factors that go into defining the gap. Markets are a big part of it and that may well account for the most part of the volatility.

HB: ...Or we had a bunch of retirements suddenly?

MW: ...And then there's a new actuarial projection that's made each year. Probably it is explained mostly by the market volatility. What is not clear in that 55 million dollar number is whether the recent contract negotiations, say in the last six to nine months- which have resulted in some reductions in future benefits- whether those changes have been factored into that 55 million dollar number

HB: ...The city is now counting itself off the hook for the FICA cost and the Burlington Employees Retirement cost of the non-teacher employees of the school district.

MW: Right.

HB: That's a big issue with the school department obviously because that shifted a million-two onto the school budget

MW: That's a good question...

HB: ...that the school board is asking for now.

MW: I haven't seen anyone speak to how that shift will impact the gap.

HB: The actuarial 30 year projection of 52 or 55 million is probably not affected a whole lot by just the school department...

MW: By a few employees shifting around? I would think it's not affected dramatically, correct.

HB: But anyway let's just jump to the crux of the matter though... what do you do about that problem? I mean the... options are limited, obviously. You either move toward a defined contribution as opposed to a defined benefit...

MW: Right... right...

HB: Or you ask more from employees toward the defined benefit plan, you ask them to contribute more, or you pay out less. Or some combination thereof, right?

MW: Well... or you... like Kurt has proposed, sell off assets to put more money into the fund and close the gap that way. Or you could, like South Burlington has done, take out a loan, and put proceeds of that loan into the fund and then raise taxes to...

HB: I mean selling assets is a one-shot endeavor...

MW: Right...

HB: You can't keep selling assets to fund an ongoing pension system. The pension system has to be self-sustaining at some point, or you're gonna run out of assets to sell... or... I mean if you're talking about borrowing to prop up the pension system, that's essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul isn't it? I mean if you're just looking at the retirement system, per se, and trying to look at making it sustainable, doesn't it come down to either switching to a different kind of system, or asking more contributions from employees or, less benefit?

MW: I think it's going to be very difficult to solve it, as you're suggesting, just completely within the pension fund itself...

HB: Right the mayor's gotta be... It is difficult...

MW: Just to be clear... I don't think a problem of that magnitude, is fair to suggest for me, to solve that problem just on the backs of public employees. I don't think that's gonna happen... I think that they make a pretty compelling case to me that they had little to do with creating it, other than doing, kinda their job and pushing for...

HB: But isn't a large part of the budget shortfall due to the increase of the benefits that were given to them in the nineties?

MW: My understanding is that's a significant part of it. The dramatic drop in the market that wasn't anticipated was another big part of it... and then... public employee leaders certainly make the case that the city was not funding... for years the city wasn't making the contributions it should have because the actuarial projections sort of allowed them to fund little or nothing a certain number of years and we'd be in a better place if they hadn't been doing that. If there had been, sort of, regular...

HB: Whose fault is that? Peter Clavelle?

MW: I will say Peter has been candid with me. He does look back on some of the decisions make there and then think, you know, there was some lack of anticipation of what was going to happen with the market... Yeah I think he would acknowledge that he was part of it, but listen he hasn't been mayor for six years now. The Kiss administration identified this as a major issue in 2007... basically had a big report in 2007 that said this problem needs to be addressed or it's gonna keep getting bigger and here are the fourteen things that need to be done to address it and very few of them have been done. A few of them have, but not many of them.... In terms of what I'm going to do about it. What I've said since pretty since pretty early in the campaign is... I'm going to focus on it. I'm going to get all the stake holders to the table...

HB: Yeah but I mean do you have some kind of an inclination now as to what you would prefer to do. I mean when I interviewed Andy Montroll- He was the Democratic nominee in 2009...

MW: Yup...

HB: He was very clear that he wanted to move to a defined contribution system. He thought that was the only way to realistically save the pensions... so people have ideas... Bob Kiss on the other hand, was very clear that he wanted to stay with a defined benefit. And Tim Ashe also- pretty much in favor of defined benefit as a means to retention... Do you have a preference?

MW: I will say this: for current pubic employees, promises that have been made to them need to be kept. And I don't think there is a way to shift the system onto the employees that are in place. I think..a question that needs to be on the table going forward is, for new employees is whether a defined continuation solution may be the way forward. It's not easy though. People shouldn't think that's just a panacea just to say we're going to go to a defined contribution program, because there's then... a major gap that needs to be funded... Our current public employees are paying into a system that pays out to the current beneficiaries. So if you go to a defined contribution system. Those employees start paying into their own accounts. So who's gonna pay...

HB: Interesting.

MW: So in and of itself, it doesn't solve the problem. There still needs to be some other steps taken. And so I can't tell you... exactly what I'm going to do now, other than I don't think the solution is putting it on the back of any one party. I think you need to get all the stakeholders to the table, which I've defined as including our institutions and the business community, given that the institutions and the business community benefit from having competent, effective public employees... It's not just the property tax payers... and the public employees that need to be at the table. It's a fairly broader net than that. I'm committed to having a summit early in my administration and not letting this fester.

HB: The two most... publicly acknowledged financial issues are the pension and Burlington Telecom. That's what keep getting mentioned... Do you agree that those are the two most pressing financial problems?

MW: I'd say those are pressing, and largest, but... certainly not the only ones that need to be fixed. The bike path needs to be fixed and the bike path task force has just come back and said we have a 12 million dollar liability there...

HB: Do you think we've been misusing the 'penny for parks?' There's been some talk about how that money has not been spent...

MW: I do think there's been a problem there, in that, yeah- it hasn't been spent. It was supposed to be annually appropriated and that hasn't been happening... I also think that there's been legitimate questions raised in terms of what the process is and should be for determining which of the many worthy possible parks projects are going to get funding. I'm supportive of the recent city council resolution that called for a new process going forward that involves the parks and recs commission in a clear way and... I think between that and a commitment that we're gonna make the annual contributions as was the plan, I think is an improvement.

HB: So I gotta ask you about Burlington Telecom... how do you solve that problem? Recently you had a dust up with Kurt about his statements about our moral obligations to pay back the 33 million, or at least as he later characterized it – whether or not there's a moral obligation, we're still going to have some- there's still going to be some effects from not paying that...

MW: Yeah...

HB: ...whether we are forced to by the courts or not... And it's similar to what Jonathan Leopold is quoted as saying... that “you don't just walk away from a 33 million dollar debt,” even if we're let off the hook and all we have to do is give them a spool of wire and we're done...

MW: Yeah...

HB: Are credit markets not going to look at that? I mean are they not going to look askance at Burlington?

MW: Well we know that the credit markets already have looked askance at Burlington and downgraded the city significantly because of what happened. I think the damage has been done... You know I disagree with Kurt... with the idea that we should should be making... you know that it's a little unclear what his point was with this moral wrong...

HB: I'll tell you how I feel... I personally feel like, we do kind of have a moral obligation to pay back that... we borrowed it...

MW: We didn't borrow it. Let's be clear. It was a lease. It was a lease that says in black and white that the tax payers- I'm not going to be able to recite the exact language- but it's pretty plain language that the taxpayers, the general fund... that taxes are not going to be...

HB: Joe wrote into the lease agreement that at least 40% of city revenues comes from sources other than tax...

MW: It wasn't in the lease agreement... The lease agreement... First of all

HB: Well there was an accompanying opinion...

MW: I think it was quite clear that the taxpayers were not supposed to be at risk for the Burlington Telecom effort...

HB: And feel like philosophically that was impossible from the get-go because the city- if they want the reward for that venture, it's almost impossible to separate out the potential for risk because if it's owned by the city, any liability ultimately has to be borne by the city, doesn't it? Even if that liability, after all that's said and done ultimately comes down to a spool of wire, it's still the city that's got to cough that up...

MW: I think you raise an interesting point that as long as the city owned it, it probably was impossible for there to be no liability, however what we're talking about here specifically is 33 million dollars that was invested into the system on specific terms. Those specific terms were quite clear that the taxpayers were not supposed to be on the hook for that, and Citi Capital knew that. I've looked at Joe's opinion... and for them to hang a 33 million...I wouldn't want to be them, I'll just say, hanging a 33 million dollar lawsuit on the idea that this one sentence, which doesn't directly contradict all the other sentences in that same opinion which reiterate that the city taxpayers are not supposed to be on the hook...

HB: The rate payers are also not supposed to be on the hook, for electric, but there are other revenue sources that the city sees...

MW: Well that was very clear too, right, that the electrical...

HB: Right. It wasn't supposed to be the tax payers, it wasn't supposed to be the electrical rate payers, but- it doesn't say that, you know, your dog license fee shouldn't go to Burlington Telecom debt- or any of the other sources- parks collections, you know...

MW: Listen...

HB: ...There's nothing precluding that...

MW: It's a bad situation Haik. 50 million dollars, cumulatively, is out the door without any means of repaying it, and that's an awful thing. My moral concern is on the side of the seniors and the families, the small business owners, who are already out 17 million dollars that they weren't supposed to be and I'm going to fight like hell to make sure they aren't out any more money. I don't think that's going to do any further damage... In fact, I think Kurt has it kind of backwards. If we win in this lawsuit and that liability goes away, and that liability is real right now. It's there. I don't know if you caught in the news earlier- it wasn't really reported, but it was mentioned in the city council meeting this week. The auditors are now saying that the reserve- the 8 million dollar reserve that Jonathan Leopold was very proud of having built up during his administration. That is now considered un-spendable by the auditors, because of the threat of BT and perhaps other liabilities out there. So right now it's a real concern and that real liability is impacting our current credit rating. If a federal court decides 'you know what? Burlington taxpayers are not on the hook for that 33 million, it's going to have a positive impact on our credit rating, and instead of that liability of up to 33 million being on our books, that's going to go away and we're going to be in a significantly better position...

HB: Well let's say the court says you're not on the hook for the 33 million, but you can't just give them an identical spool of wire, you've got to rip the street that's there, because that is the equipment that the lease paid for, and maybe Citi wants to demand that.

MW: I think that's some real leverage there.

HB: For Citi?

MW: I think that's a real question. It does seem to me that they may win on that claim.

HB: I mean even if they do that just as an example to their other borrowers...

MW: Yeah...

HB: … like “don't mess with us.” Doesn't that put us in a bad position in terms of finding a private partner? Isn't the lawsuit itself... What do you think the odds of getting a partner are?

MW: I think the odds of getting a private partner are good...

HB: Do you have specific information like you know of somebody's that's interested?

MW: I don't have any of the privileged information that the city council- Kurt may have or I think others have- I do know- I believe from various things I've been told that there are serious parties that are interested in the system. And I further have been told that the valuation estimates of what the system is worth range from 5 million to 15 million. I don't think anyone thinks it's worth 15 million any more... That's the essential financial reality that I think all the parties are going to have to come to terms with, is- if that's what the system is worth, that's all there is left to try to come to a resolution with BT if the judge rules that they still have- If the judge rules that we can't just give them an alternate form of wire then the options for settling it involve that new party coming in- because I don't think there's any appetite for putting in additional public money. So that will be the funds that are the full universe to resolve this.

HB: What do you think of the internet-piracy bills that are in congress now? The senate bill is being sponsored by Leahy- I forgot what the acronym is for... SOPA...

MW: You know I don't know enough about them to comment on them. Interestingly when I've been out door knocking, particularly in some student sections it's been something that's raised with me repeatedly. There's some concern about- and some anger...

HB: You have a pretty advanced social media campaign too, and I think that a lot of the people that are involved in social media are... It seems like a touchy issue and it also, to me, seems like to me a slippery slope. I don't know you implement safeguards against piracy without also curtailing free speech. It seems impossible.

MW: I can't really comment on it. I haven't focused on it as a mayoral... Do you think it has some local government implications?

HB: Well I think it has implications for the internet across the board and therefore, yes. But I hear what you're saying. Do you think that state and national issues in general are something the city council in general should reserve speaking out on because it doesn't affect local issues? Because that's a debate. Should the city council be raising its voice about Arizona immigration laws, or what's happening in Iraq? Because that's a theme that comes up again and again. Any thoughts on that?

MW: I think it's a legitimate means of political expression for the city council to take opinions on these issues. Particularly in Burlington that is a place that has made it clear for decades that we care about the larger political, social, economic context we're in.

HB: Your campaign sent out an email this week saying “Kurt Wright cast a Republican party-line vote in Montpelier against funding for social work, substance abuse and intervention, law enforcement and refugee resettlement initiatives that are critical to the well being of Burlington and in line with Burlington values...” this is a direct pull from your email...

MW: Yeah...

HB: It was from the gentleman that was just here,, Rizvi...

MW: Jaafar Rizvi. Yup. He did make such a vote. Do you have a question about that?

HB: Can you talk about that? What was that vote about?

MW: It was a budget adjustment act that involved a long list of funding for different programs including rapid arraignment funding which is something that I've had some involvement with on the board of the Turning Point Center. It's an alternate criminal justice program. There's funding for some medical education...

HB: So you disagreed with the vote?

MW: Well every Democrat ln the legislature disagreed with the vote, I believe... The rest of the Burlington delegation saw this as important funding for initiatives within the city and it was even fiscally responsible, in that it was going to result in a savings versus the current budget. Kurt voted against it. And then when he was called on it by Kesha Ram and the Vermont Democratic party he- in the final reading of the vote- he flip-flopped and he did vote for it.

HB: You've never been elected to an office before, but you've served on- like you said- the turning point board, and some other boards...

MW: That's right...

HB: Obviously you're on the airport commission...

MW: Also the ECHO board is the other major board I've been on in recent years.

HB: I went to Peter Clavelle in 1991 and told him I was going to run against him for mayor, and he said 'why don't you run for the school board?' You know 'why do you want to start with mayor?' Maybe that question made sense because I was 18...

MW: Right...

HB: ...But it still might make sense for anyone that starts fresh. Why not city council? Why do you want to go for mayor right away? And what makes you qualified to do that- as opposed to Kurt Wright who's been in...

MW: I thought the city was at a point we needed something very different than the current mayor. I thought I brought to the table a set of skills and experience that were very different than Bob Kiss has. I think my experience managing large complicated projects, making substantial financial decisions- I think that experience has been missing the last six years and I thought the folks of Burlington might agree it would be good to have a mayor that brought that kind of background to the table. I will say it's not like the idea of being involved in public service just occurred to me here. I mean I have worked for a couple of US senators in different capacities...

HB: Which ones?

MW: I worked for senator Leahy when I was still in college. I opened mail and was an intern in his office in college. Then after a brief job working for Habitat For Humanity I spent a year on US senator Harris Wofford's campaign- Pennsylvania senator.

HB: Yeah. He won a special election.

MW: Yeah right. I was on the election three years later against Rick Santorum, and we lost by fifty thousand votes in tough race. 1994 was a big Republican year so... That was my introduction to politics, those two experiences...

HB: You worked in DC?

MW: Yes. For Leahy I worked in DC, in his DC office, and then for Wofford the campaign had started in DC and then moved to Pennsylvania. Went to Philadelphia.

HB: So you've been a Democratic activist for a long time? Is that fair to say?

MW: Yeah. I did... other roles for the party too. I worked in 1996 for the coordinated campaign working under Marty Raths and Peter Shumlin who was the state senate minority leader at the time. He saw an opportunity- It's sort of hard to believe that we had a Democratic minority in the senate these days, but in '96 we did- it was a small minority. I believe the numbers were eleven of the thirty seats were democratic at the time, but there was a number of Republican retirements coming up and Peter saw an opportunity to have a statewide effort that focused on picking up some seats, and might give him the opportunity to become the president pro tem of the senate and were were successful in that. We picked up six seats. After that election... I believe it went from 11/19 to 18/12, Democratic. So that was a successful effort. I was the Chittenden County Democratic chair in... I think it was the 2004 cycle when...

HB: I did not know that...

MW: … when the Democrats were in the minority in the house after 'take back Vermont' years there...

HB: The Vermont house.

MW: ...In the Vermont house. And there was an opportunity for the Democrats to take back the house and I got to play a part in that as the Chittenden County chair- Picked up six seats in Chittenden County... and the Democrats have been in control of the house ever since.

HB: And locally it looks like the Democrats have a good opportunity to possibility pick up a few more seats on the city council...

MW: And the mayor's office perhaps!

HB: And the mayor's office perhaps. So... is the Progressive party... dead?

MW: You know, I'm not going to speculate on that. They've been counted out many times and come back. They have a remarkable organization and resiliency...

HB: It looks like they could lose Ward Three though, for the first time in 30 years. Would that be significant?

MW: I'm not going to speculate on that. As you know, I'm not going to be successful on March 6 without many people who consider myself progressive voters supporting my campaign.

HB: One of my neighbors up in Ward Seven was asking me last night- If we look inside Miro, is there some progressive in there? Is there some Progressive inside Miro Weinberger?

MW: Listen- I'm someone that spent my whole career working on affordable housing projects, working on green building projects, who worked for liberal Democratic senators and state politicians... who was raised going to anti-nuclear weapons rallies. My parents were bother activists in Berkeley in the sixties. Absolutely... there's some progressive inside of me. I'm very aware of the thirty years of progress the city has made. The Progressives as a political organization deserve significant credit for that... and I intend to build on top of that. I think I've been pretty clear. I want to kind of get us back on the track that we were on for years, of being a city that made major progress- sometimes spectacular progress. I do think the challenges upon us immediately as a city are good governance issues. They're issues of running the city properly, of being responsible with people's money... That's been the focus of my campaign. That's what our immediate challenges are. People shouldn't understand that to be a lack of belief in social justice, social equity issues.

HB: Miro Weinberger, Democratic candidate for mayor of Burlington. Very nice speaking with you. Thank you very much for your time.

MW: Thank you Haik.