Gov. Phil Scott’s dozens upon dozens of vetoes fall into three rough categories:

• Principled, which involve an honest philosophical difference between Republican executive and Democratic/Progressive Legislature.
• Easily avoidable, in which Scott proffers an objection that could have been easily cleared up with a little effort during the session.
• Transparently phony, in which Scott gins up some excuse for a veto because if he came right out and disagreed with a bill’s premise it might damage his “moderate” image.

Today’s veto of H.645 is a combo platter of number 2 and number 3, a particularly toxic blend. The bill would ensure equitable access to restorative justice programs. In other words, kind of a squishy criminal justice reform that wouldn’t appeal to someone who wants to be tough on crime. For instance, Phil Scott.

But instead of addressing the issue directly and risk tarnishing his centrist cred, he claimed that he had to veto the bill because it lacked the necessary funding to put it into practice. (His veto message is very brief and includes no hint of any other rationale.)

Implementation of the measure would be handled by the Attorney General’s Office, and unfortunately for Scott’s chosen rationale, AG Charity Clark quickly replied that her office could handle it with no problem, at least for the next fiscal year, with its existing resources.

Yeah, kind of embarrassing.

I should also note that the bill wouldn’t take effect until July 1, 2025, so the next year would only involve ramping up to implementation. That’s a much more manageable task. And for Scott to claim (as he does) that he must veto the bill because it might be unfunded in the Fiscal Year 2026 budget, which won’t even be written until next spring, is just disingenuous.

Key passage of Clark’s statement:

I appreciate the Governor’s concern. But I am best positioned to determine the capabilities of this office I know so well. …Moreover, our understanding is that the Legislature simply ran out of time to adequately address this issue this session but can take it up next year.

If Scott was honestly concerned with the AGO’s resources, a simple communication with Clark would have cleared it up in two shakes. So either he vetoed the bill without asking Clark, which is ridiculous, or he’s lying about the real reason for the veto. My money’s on the latter. I’ve seen this movie before.

It’s also of a piece with Scott’s hands-free approach to the bill’s development. According to a key lawmaker involved with H.645, “We worked with prosecutors, the court, victim advocates, defenders and others, but the administration was largely absent.”

This is the administration’s standard operating procedure: Absenting itself from the lawmaking process (unlike its predecessors of both parties) and then complaining after the fact about the outcome.

This is how you rack up so many vetoes that you’re almost assured of retiring the record for the rest of history. Scott is approaching 50 vetoes in less than eight years. The previous record holder, Howard Dean, was in office for 12 years and vetoed a total of 21 bills. Charity Clar

Scott has lapped the field. Which is a good thing in auto racing, but not when it comes to a dysfunctional relationship with the Legislature. (Far more dysfunctional than Jim Douglas’ relationship with Democratic majorities.) In the case of H.645, he has offered transparently phony grounds for vetoing a bill that came out of a rigorous process involving all interested parties.

Except for Team Scott.