The Vermont Senate voted overwhelmingly to move towards a 2012 closure of Vermont Yankee, the state’s nuclear power plant. A vote of 26-4 is about as strong a repudiation of the plant as is possible. Four senators voted to keep the process alive (not to re-license the plant, per se).Two were Democrats and two were Republicans. So why would these four stand against the tide? Knowing each fairly well, it is clear that none are ‘in the pocket’ of VY. Each of them has a successful career outside the State House; they are all in politics not for self aggrandizement but to serve in the truest sense of citizen legislator. None need to serve other than for the calling of service itself. I could recount the history of each and attempt to divine why they stood against the tide. It might prove to be an interesting exercise but the most interesting story is that of Senator Phil Scott of Washington County.

Senator Scott is a Republican hailing from Washington County, certainly not the epicenter of conservative thought. He voted for same sex marriage and withstood a barrage of criticism. He is now running in the Republican primary for Lt. Governor in a state that is decidedly ‘blue’ and running against the son of one of Vermont’s most revered political families.

In recent polls, it appears that nearly 50% of Vermonters want VY shut down. Let’s face it. The operation and public relations efforts of VY over the past year could have been made into a Three Stooges movie. It left even their most ardent supporters scratching their heads.

Senator Scott, speaking in the quiet voice that is characteristic of his Vermont roots, explained that his vote was about ‘process’ and not a vote in favor of the power plant. He firmly believes that the legislature should be a deliberative body; one that assembles facts, debates them openly and only after that open debate, makes a decision. He felt that this vote was pushed through to appease the current popular sentiments towards Yankee and lacked the thoughtful review that the Vermont Senate has been noted for. If law and policy are made, he reasoned, based on populist sentiments much of the progressive law and policy that we have today would not exist.

Whether one agrees with his vote or not, it is an interesting perspective into one of our candidates for higher office. Process matters; dialog matters; facts matter.