Remember the millions of dollars that taxpayers were going to get when we sold off Burlington Telecom (BT)?

Guess what: in a 180-degree reversal before state regulators, the city claims we’re not owed any money at all. And, it can turn around and give the money an invest in Schurz to help it make the sale work for them.



That’s right. NONE. Zip. Nada.

Before I explain this last-minute, desperate shell game using our money, I should note that I’m one of a handful of taxpayers intervening in the BT sale. We believe taxpayers are owed the $16.9 million in unauthorized spending on BT as part of any sale and are making our case before the state Public Utilities Commission. (PUC).



The heart of the intervenor’s final argument in opposition of the sale of Burlington Telecom to Indiana-based Schurz Communications is that there needs to be enough money from the sale to, at a minimum, cover the nearly $17 million used to prop up BT during its startup phase. And, which was spent in violation of the city charter, and BT’s own certificate of public good (or state license to operate).



In a surprise, last-minute filing with the PUC, the city says – au contraire – that despite years of promises to pay back the $16.9 million—and using it as a cudgel to deny continued community ownership of this key piece of civic infrastructure—that there’s no need to repay it. In fact, the city wants to turn around and give the money to Schurz for a token seat on the board of the new telecom. As if that somehow is equivalent to local ownership.



The city makes this claim despite the fact that the city’s charter states that the costs of Burlington Telecom “in no event are borne by the city’s taxpayers.” This charter provision was used by opponents of BT to force its sale when the money couldn’t be repaid immediately upon discovery.



One of my fellow intervenors, Dean Corren, had this to say after reading the city’s argument: “After claiming for years that the only way to recoup this $16.9 million was to sell Burlington Telecom, it’s unconscionable that the city is now arguing that Schurz should be allowed walk away with our money. This outrageous hypocrisy would turn an initial misappropriation into out-and-out theft,” said Corren. “The mayor’s message to taxpayers: drop dead.”

This repayment fantasy was also used to scare city councilors into believing that a locally owned option was off the table because it wouldn’t net enough revenue for the city to meet its obligations to taxpayers.

If the PUC allows this scheme, not just two-thirds of taxpayers’ money will be diverted into Schurz, but 100 percent.

This also means that the major net proceeds of this sale will now benefit just a few entities – Mayor Weinberger’s pal Ray Pecor, Pecor’s investors in Blue Water Holdings, outside attorneys hired by the city, CitiBank, and Schurz Communications.

Who’s missing from that list? The people who envisioned, funded, and stuck with Burlington Telecom until it became a profitable business.

That’d be us – taxpayers and subscribers.

So, what next?

Send a short email to your city councilors and ask them why they are allowing the Mayor’s administration to make the case that now, after years of saying otherwise, the money from the sale is not owed to us. And, that’s not even our money, but can be given to Schurz.

To be honest, the sale process should be halted a do-over called since it changes the dynamics of the sale and what led to it. If none of the proceeds are needed to repay a debt, then local ownership is no longer at a disadvantage. In fact, we could use those millions to help a local owner finance the deal: An owner who will keep profits local.

Burlington deserves a better deal.

“The Schurz deal is an unjustifiable giveaway of the City’s critical and successful utility to a private out-of-state company, denying Burlington the economic and civic benefits which the City is entitled to from its investments in BT,” added Solveig Overby, another one of the intervenors. “The sale would net the City a one-time $5 million payment, with no plan to return the $16.9 million taxpayer investment. The sale would also result in millions of dollars a year in added expense to taxpayers for municipal and school internet services, lasting forever into the future. And, there is nothing to stop a later sale to Comcast or any other monopoly. We hope the PUC will rule for Burlington taxpayers to recoup their investment and preserve BT’s accountability as a fiber-optic infrastructure critical to the healthy functioning of our civic democracy and the public good.”

All documents and public comment in the BT sale case, 18-0491-PET, are available on the PUC website.

PS: If you’ve read this far … a humble request:

We are looking for help to cover the legal costs of our intervention and to expose this sham of a sale. To help in any amount you can, please contribute in either of two ways:

BY CHECK Payable to: “James Dumont, Esq.”, with memo line: “BT PUC case” Mail to: Law Office of James Dumont, 15 Main Street, PO Box 229, Bristol, VT 05443 BY PAYPAL: Send via PayPal from your bank (free) or credit card (3%) to this special email address: : Send via PayPal from your bank (free) or credit card (3%) to this special email address: TrusteeSO@burlingtontelecom.net

PPS: Help us spread the word!

