Monthly Archives: May 2015

How the philosophical exemption was lost

A few weeks ago, the state legislature had apparently decided not to open the Pandora’s box of vaccination policy. The general feeling was, let’s let the 2012 law play out a while longer and see where it goes.

And then, for reasons still unexplained, a couple of key state Senators (Kevin Mullin and John Campbell) grabbed that box and threw it open. They amended a barely-related Health Department housekeeping bill, H.98, to include an end to the philosophical exemption on childhood immunizations. The Senate Health Care Committee gave it a mere two hours of hearings, one for and one against; it sailed through the committee and the full Senate.

Even so, it seemed likely that the House would let the amended bill lie. Leadership decided to have the House Health Care Committee hold hearings on H.98, even though the bill was never officially given to that committee. Those hearings were quickly scheduled, and they were quite extensive. At the time, it seemed like a ploy to run out the clock. Even more so as the hearings continued through the penultimate week of the session.

Funny thing, though: the more time passed, the more things seemed to shift entirely. By the end of last week, the momentum was clearly on H.98’s side. A House vote seemed certain and passage seemed likely, if not a sure thing. Monday’s public hearing was a chance for all parties to sound off, without actually affecting the process.

Which brings us to Tuesday, covered in my previous post. The Donahue amendment lost by the narrowest of margins, and then H.98 passed the House with ease.

This time, I’m here to explain why this happened. Not how it happened; you’d have to get John Campbell and Shap Smith into a rubber room and fill ’em full of truth serum to find that out. As for the why, here’s my two cents. Or three, if you prefer.

Continue reading

Missed it by that much

Anne Donahue had a clever plan.

Notice I say “clever,” not “smart.” The Donahue amendment was a last-ditch attempt to derail H.98, the bill that would end the philosophical exemption for childhood vaccinations.

The amendment would have combined the philosophical and religious exemptions, and put more obstacles in the way of those seeking an exemption: reading educational materials, watching a video, having an in-person consultation with a health care practitioner. Donahue argued that these obstacles would achieve the goal of raising immunization rates without sacrificing parental choice.

It was clever because it played on lawmakers’ fears of taking a definitive stand, fears that are always amplified when there’s a loud and focused opposition.

It wasn’t smart because it would have done nothing to raise immunization rates.

I can say that with confidence because if the House had adopted the amendment, it would have been at odds with the Senate. With the Legislature careening toward adjournment and many pressing issues still unresolved, it’s a virtual certainty that H.98 would have been quietly shelved.

Of course, Donahue had to know that.

Continue reading

The vultures gather with unseemly haste

If Norm McAllister thinks he still has any friends in the political world, he should give it another think.

At last check, McAllister was technically still a member of the Senate. He has yet to submit his resignation, if that is indeed what he will do.

However, the lack of a vacancy hasn’t stopped some very ambitious folks from putting their names forward to replace him.

Out of, you understand, a selfless concern for the good people of Vermont.

"Pick me! I've even got a mascot!"

“Pick me! I’ve even got a mascot!”

Foremost among this unsavory horde is a guy who ought to posess a bit more sensitivity: Randy Brock, former state senator and auditor and candidate for Governor. Seven Days’ Paul Heintz:

“If [McAllister] resigns, I would certainly be interested in filling the seat, because I think it needs to be filled and I think it needs to be filled by someone who can get to work immediately, who’s up on the issues,” Brock said. “So I’m willing to serve, yes.”

“Willing to serve,” pssssh. “Desperately jonesing for a return to politics,” I’ll buy.

Continue reading

It’s not that simple

One of my readers posted a comment basically wondering why, if women were being routinely victimized by soon-to-be-former Sen. Norm McAllister, they didn’t go to the authorities? Why put up with the abuse? Why not stay away from the guy?

It’s an understandable reaction. I’ve never been in that situation, and it’s almost impossible to imagine being in that situation. But many people are — more than it’s comfortable to think about — and they feel powerless to resist, evade, or report.

For one great example of this phenomenon, see Morgan Trus’s fine piece on VTDigger regarding “survival sex” — in which victims feel their well-being is dependent on their abuser’s approval. It’s a surprisingly common occurrence, especially in a society where many women are financially dependent on a man.

Continue reading

Somewhere over a quiet drink, two lawmakers are synchronizing their stories

Pity the poor Kevin Mullin, Senator from Rutland, and Tim Corcoran, Representative from Bennington. They had the misfortune to share a rental house with disgraced Sen. Norm McAllister (R-Siberia). And in that house, McAllister is accused of repeatedly raping a young woman who he presented to his colleagues as his “intern.” And now, Mullin and Corcoran find themselves on a hot seat of sorts. Or they ought to, anyway.

For his part, Mullin has claimed that the woman, 43 years McAllister’s junior, slept in the basement. Corcoran, however, seems to have a different recollection:

… Corcoran said Monday afternoon that, “as far as I know,” 63-year-old McAllister and the young woman he employed as a sort of legislative assistant were spending nights in the same room, on the occasions the woman stayed in the capital.

The young woman has said that McAllister raped her “just about” every time she stayed in the house.

Both Mullin and Corcoran seem to have adopted a relentlessly aggressive incuriosity about their roomie and his (cough) intern. Corcoran’s “as far as I know” is matched by Mullin’s “I assume [the basement is] where she slept.”

Continue reading

Who is this “Norm McAllister” of whom you speak?

It was a real pigpile in the Statehouse today, as every politician rushed to give their two cents’ on Sen. Norm McAllister. And while Friday’s reaction was shock and surprise and even a smidge of sympathy for Good Ol’ Norm, today it was the ultimate game of Hot Potato, starring McAllister as the spud in question.

But he was more than just a hot potato; he was more like a potato baked in the hot zone of a nuclear reactor, marinated in snake venom, glazed with a hobo-puke reduction and liberally sprinkled with powdered essence of skunk. Such was the unseemly haste with which Our Leaders sought to distance themselves from McAllister and his [alleged] crimes.

There were universal calls for his resignation, as if the presumption of innocence had withered and died under the sheer ick factor of the [alleged] offenses. And, quick as a bunny, Lt. Gov. Phil Scott announced that McAllister would resign within 24 hours.

The news of his coming resignation elicited barely-concealed sighs of relief and metaphorical mopping of brows all around. But there was one small problem: Nobody told Good Ol’ Norm.

Continue reading

No, John, that’s not how an ethics panel works

I feel so proud.

In announcing his complete reversal on the need for a Senate ethics panel, Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell put his finger squarely on the source of the problem.

The panel would also give a lawmaker accused of wrongdoing an opportunity to refute allegations made by “journalists or bloggers.” Campbell said lawmakers need a place “where people can go to clear their name if someone makes an accusation.”

Aww, John. I didn’t know you cared.

Continue reading

All of a sudden, the Senate needs an ethics committee

Less than two weeks ago, Seven Days‘ Paul Heintz revealed that Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell had gotten a job with the Windsor County State’s Attorney under what can only be called questionable circumstances.

Last year, Campbell actively lobbied for the job on behalf of the SA, who happens to be a neighbor of his. After the job went through, Campbell inquired about it, and was hired without any search process.

In the story, Heintz raised the issue of creating a Senate Ethics Committee, which currently does not exist. Campbell, sounding a lot like Bill Sorrell attesting to Bill Sorrell’s innocence:

“We really haven’t talked about it,” Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell (D-Windsor) said earlier this year. “I can’t remember the last time there was something that even came close to a question of someone’s ethics.”

Well, you can file that one in the Ron Ziegler Memorial “Inoperative” File. What’s changed?

Good Ol’ Norm, that’s what.

Continue reading

I wrote a letter

On Sunday, I wrote a letter to Rep. David Deen, chair of the House Ethics Panel. I requested a review of Rep. Adam Greshin’s activities surrounding H.40, the RESET renewable energy bill. Greshin had proposed an amendment to freeze funding for Efficiency Vermont, and has vigorously campaigned for its adoption in both the House and Senate.

Greshin is co-owner of the Sugarbush ski resort. As I previously noted in this space:

The ski industry is a voracious consumer of electricity.

Efficiency Vermont is funded by ratepayers, with rates approved by the Public Service Board.

Do I need to connect those dots?

If the Greshin amendment is adopted, his ski resort stands to save a pretty penny on its utility bills. It’s already passed the House; it’s now pending before the Senate.

Potential conflicts abound in a citizen Legislature, and there’s a sizable gray area. The single act of voting for a bill, in my mind, is not in itself grounds for a conflict investigation.

But Greshin’s case is a whole different kettle of fish for two reasons.

Continue reading

Fill up the dunk tank with Purell, please. I need to feel clean again

Update: Seven Days has just posted a story with more unsavory details. See below.

Things are not looking bright for Good Ol’ Norm. More details came out Friday on the criminal charges against Sen. Norm McAllister; and if you’re not completely skeeved out by them, well, your Skeeve-O-Meter needs a tuneup.

The case against G.O.N. “suggest[s] that McAllister for years used his power over vulnerable women,” reports Seven Days’ Mark Davis:

In December 2012, a woman moved into a trailer home McAllister owned in Franklin and began working at his farm. From the beginning, he asked her for sexual favors in exchange for allowing her to keep her job and home, affidavits say.

Reminder: McAllister’s late wife was still alive when this got started. Extra bonus skeeve points.

There’s a whole parade of horrors in the police documents, with three women alleging nonconsensual sex with McAllister — oral, vaginal, and anal, on dozens and dozens of occasions, sometimes causing pain. And, according to a Sunday evening report on Seven Days, one of his victims may have been below the age of legal consent when the assaults began.

But the low point, IMO, was this:

McAllister also proposed transporting her to area farms so she could perform sex acts on “Mexican” farmhands. He proposed they split the proceeds. She refused.

Eeeeeeeuuuuuuuucccccch. And this is a guy who was an aggressive moralist in his politics.

Continue reading