Sen. Vincent Illuzzi, Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs Committee – Download

Sen. Tim Ashe, Chittenden County – Download

Chuck Ross, Secretary, Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets – Download

Keith Flynn, Commissioner, Department of Public Safety – Download

Erik FitzPatrick, Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Council – Download

Comments and Questions – Download

Bill Smith, Vermont Police Association – Download

Penelope shared that after much research, she found that there are three simple things that an organization can do to motivate donors to stay loyal to the organization and to increase their giving:

1. Thank them promptly and meaningfully.
2. Tell them how the money will be used.
3. Report to them the results of the project their donation supported.

Some statistics:

• In March 2011, 52% of donors said they could have given more money last year.
• In 2009, 59% of donors were affected by the recession, but still they gave the same amount, or even more.
• 75% of donors give just a little bit to see what the organization will do next.
• 84% of donors said they would give again if they were asked (35% do).
• 9 out of 10 donors stop giving to an organization before they become “profitable”

Penelope also reported that there has been a 10-year trend toward individual donors supporting fewer causes. This means that any direct marketing appeal that relies solely on volume for success is in trouble. Further, if all organizations are going to have fewer total donors in the coming years, every organization has to make sure it is working to keep the donors it already has.

So, how does an organization increase donor loyalty and donor giving? Simple – give them what they want. Those three things listed above are the key, Penelope says. Say thank you, tell them where the money is going, and tell them what happened because of their donation. Do this regularly, even for donors who give the smallest amounts, and over time, they will give more.

Also, work to develop your volunteer leadership. Penelope stressed that every minute spent on developing volunteer leaders is time “stunningly” well spent because these leaders have fundraising power that no one on the staff will have. These leaders do not necessarily have to know the donors or make the initial contact, but they do need to be willing to share their story, whether it is their own personal philanthropic story, or the story of how the organization helped them.

I experienced this myself just this week when I attended the 10^th anniversary celebration of DREAM. I would not have gone to this event (or even known about it) if I hadn’t been personally invited by a friend. I really had no intention of contributing to the organization, but during the event, one of the staff read a letter from one of the program participants. She couldn’t attend the event because she was in college – already showing that the program is successful. Her letter was articulate and compelling, and her story resonated with me personally. Needless to say, I wrote a check before I left. Thinking back on it, I probably could have written a bigger check. We’ll see what happens next…

Activists can help support the lobbyists by expressing collective power outside the statehouse in strategic and targeted ways, to add strength to the lobbyist’s work inside the building. It is very important to think through all tactics before implementing them. Groups should work with their lobbyist to develop coordinated strategy that builds their power over time for maximum effectiveness. Remember, no tactic is always the right thing, and no tactic is always the wrong thing. It all depends on the situation and the people involved. Every tactic that is used should be part of an overall campaign strategy with clear goals and objectives.

Here are a just few examples of tactics that groups can use to support their lobbyist’s work. Of course, the possibilities are endless – and creativity can get you attention when you need it most. Just remember to always ask yourself, “What is our goal? How will the tactic we are considering achieve our goal?”

Calls to Legislators – a group can put out a call to action for people to call the statehouse and leave a message for their legislator(s). Calls can be very effective if used at the right time – when something is actually happening inside the statehouse – and when there is a specific request (vote yes/no). People calling should only call their own legislators and should know the bill number they are calling about.

Letters to Legislators – a group can ask people write letters to their legislator(s) at the statehouse or at the legislators’ homes. Letters are a good way to have people ask their legislators to support a bill when nothing specific is happening. Writing a letter lets people tell their story and put their personal flair on their communication. Remember that legislators are in the statehouse Tue-Fri, and home Sat-Monday. Many don’t see their home mail when they are at the statehouse. Make sure people include their contact information in the letter. A return address is important, as well as contact info inside the letter.

Letters to the Editor - Letters to the Editor (LTEs) are a good way to show the legislators that there is support (or opposition) in their community on a specific issue. LTEs are also a good way to get a media outlet to begin paying attention to your issue if they have not been covering it. LTEs also help to find more people who are interested in your issue, especially if your LTE writers include a way to get involved in the letter.

Rallies/Press Events - Holding a rally or hosting a press event can bring attention to an issue and show support for it in the community. Plan press events carefully so they achieve the effect you want. Think about the headline you’d like to read, the photo you want to see, and the caption below the photo. Set up the event to make sure you get the story you want. Rallies are a way to escalate and put more pressure on elected leaders. Remember, it is difficult to sustain the energy pressure of a rally for extended periods of time, so make sure to time them carefully (Occupy Wall Street notwithstanding!). Think about your message and make sure you have consistent messaging throughout the event – speakers, signs, etc.

Visible Symbols of Support – Sometimes it is helpful to have visible symbols of support that activists can utilize both inside and outside of the statehouse – stickers, t-shirts, lawn signs, other creative things. These symbols can help by showing legislators there is support throughout their community, identifying supporters inside the statehouse, helping activists to identify each other for mutual support, and giving people creative ways to show that they are on your team.

Here’s what you will learn how to do in the workshop:

• Identify people who are interested in your work or cause and engage them in that work or action
• Identify the infrastructure you need to build a strong organization and movement
• Develop a plan to bring more people into your campaigns and work
• Have more productive meetings and events
• Identify and develop leaders in your organization
• Avoid burnout in yourself and your organization
• Get more done with the same resources

This workshop includes time to actually do some work to get you started. Consider having two or more people from your organization attend, so you can work together during the breakout sessions. This is not required, but can be very helpful.

The session is highly interactive and includes plenty of time for questions and answers. We will all benefit from the knowledge of the group. Come with questions and stories of your own organizing successes.

Please be sure you can attend for the full day before registering. If you have questions, contact me at amyactioncircles@gmail.com.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has given Vermont Yankee the go-ahead. However, a Vermont state law requires a positive action by the legislature in order for the plant to continue operation. Entergy agreed to abide by this decision when it purchased the plant in 2002, but since state-level permission has not been granted, Entergy has decided to fight the state. The question is now in the courts.

Many arguments exist on both sides as to whether the plant should continue to operate or not. In a recent poll conducted by Public Policy Polling, 45 percent of Vermonters questioned supported the continued operation of the plant, while 41 percent said it should be shut down (15 percent were not sure).

Those who want the plant to continue have a primarily economic argument: we need the low-cost power, and hundreds of jobs are associated with the plant’s continued operation. Some also say that Vermont Yankee’s contribution to the New England grid is essential.

Those opposed to the plant generally focus on the nuclear waste that has to be stored for thousands of years; the issues that the plant has had, such as a collapsed cooling tower and tritium leaks; and the economic and environmental benefits of shifting to renewable energy for the future.

Personally, I am opposed to nuclear energy for three reasons. The first is that some of the “waste” generated by nuclear power plants is the foundation for building nuclear weapons. The second reason is that the nuclear waste generated by plants, even that which isn’t used for weapons, is radioactive for hundreds to thousands of years and can cause many problems for the people, animals and environment around it. The third is the possibility of major disaster. We need only pay attention to what is happening right now in Japan to see the potential calamity.

However, I find it interesting that the question in the courts really doesn’t consider these issues. Instead it is focused on this question: Does Vermont have the right to say no?

For that reason alone, I would support closing Vermont Yankee. Although I am no lawyer, this debate seems to be a classic state’s-rights issue. Does the state of Vermont have the right to decide whether a nuclear power plant will operate within its borders, or can the federal government override our legislature’s decision? Given that the feds have already reneged on their promise to find a way to deal with the waste, it just doesn’t seem fair that they can force us to accept continued production of this highly toxic material.

I know there is a more subtle question of whether Vermont’s reasons for saying no involved safety or reliability, but, in the end, it boils down to whether the state has the right to decide.

Of course, there is also the question of whether Entergy has the right to make their profits if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission grants them permission. This company is in a tough place right now with this plant. It has had to decide to refuel at a cost of $100 million, and now it is required to pay into the decommissioning fund — another $40 million — without knowing whether it will be able to continue running the plant after March of 2012. Should a company be expected to operate in a climate of uncertainty?

Yet it is Entergy themselves causing the uncertainty. Vermont has made its decision clear. Our legislature said no. Entergy is choosing to fight that decision and thus keep the question open. So, shouldn’t they have to shoulder the risk?

In the coming weeks, the court will be hearing the arguments. Whatever your position on the continued operation of the plant, pay attention to the question of what is within the state’s power to decide, and ask yourself if you are comfortable with federal agencies making these decisions for us.

I’ve done what I can to educate myself on what is happening. I’ve read the materials from the co-op and also from the union. I’ve talked to a few people involved, and I’ve read what I could find in the local media. That said, I’m not an expert on this issue, nor on contract negotiations.

I am a member of the co-op, though, and one of the reasons I am is because I want to support everyone in the food chain making a living wage. My preference is to buy direct from the food producers, but it’s not always possible for me to do so, and so I do my best to support economic justice within the system that I am confronted with. I have also appreciated the fact that the co-op is unionized.

I’m not going to get into a he-said-she-said kind of discussion here. Both sides seem to have a few valid points. I will say, however, that I believe the co-op should pay its workers as much as it can, and it should do what it can to raise the average wages in our community. It should treat its workers with respect, and it should expect the community at large to do this also. It should also do what it can to raise the expectations of all consumers so that this is the rule, rather than the exception.

What I am appreciating during this difficult time is the union’s willingness to stand for the workers, and to insist that they are paid well. This is a difficult thing in a small community. Yet, it is incredibly important. We must set our expectations high, and begin from a place of abundance. We can afford to pay these workers well. It’s that simple. And if, for some reason we think we can’t, then we should look at where our priorities are, and have a conversation about that.

Just a few short months ago, hundreds of us stood on the Statehouse steps and in other places around the state and rallied in support of workers in Wisconsin. We cheered at the speeches about solidarity and how we need to work toward economic justice. Yet here, in our own community, we stand by and watch as people have to fight for a few dollars here and there, when the business they work for is prospering. I will  probably never meet the people who shut down the Wisconsin Statehouse while I was at a rally here in Vermont, but I see and talk to the workers at the co-op every week, and I will stand in solidarity with them.