It’s been a hell of a day under the Golden Dome. The House had a full agenda, with plenty of bills trying to beat crossover deadline. And there were a bunch of resolutions honoring, among other things, Athletic Trainers’ Month, the Month of the Military Child, McNeil & Reedy’s 70th year as a clothing retailer, the Vermont athletes who competed in the 2025 National Senior Games, and East Haven Selectboard member Kirwin Flanders, plus the designation of October 5 as Italian-American Day in Vermont, presumably a sop to those who still bemoan the loss of Columbus Day.
Anyway. It was going to be a big day… and then all hell broke loose.
First came a letter from Speaker Jill Krowinski to House members announcing that Rep. Bob Hooper of Burlington had relinquished his seat on the House Government Operations & MIlitary Affairs Committee because of an unspecified violation of the House Sexual Harassment Prevention Policy. Krowinski further said that Hooper would not be given any other committee assignment in the current biennium, which is as close as a House member can get to Siberian exile.
Then we got a press release signed by almost everyone in the House Democratic caucus* urging Hooper to resign from his seat in the House after “a thorough and diligent investigation… substantiated a claim of sexual harassment against another member.”
*There were 84 signatories out of 87 Democratic House members, including Krowinski**. By my count, the three who didn’t sign were Hooper himself, Mollie Burke, and Saudia LaMont. Burke, for what it’s worth, chairs the House Sexual Harassment Prevention Panel. You know, the folks responsible for that “diligent and thorough investigation.”
*Intentionally or not, the House Dems made it hard to find out who didn’t sign. The 84 members were listed in alphabetical order BY FIRST NAME, which meant I spent a lot of time identifying the three non-signers.
Finally, Vermont Public reported late Friday afternoon that Hooper plans to resign from the House, but not until Monday “so that he could consult with his lawyer and let his constituents know first.”
And thus ended, within a few short hours, a seven-year-long legislative career.
The communiqués from Krowinski and the Democratic caucus raised more questions than they answered. They both declared their commitment to “providing a professional work environment [with] zero tolerance for sexual harassment, discrimination, or any hostile behavior.” Which turns out to be industrial-grade bullshit, but we’ll get to that.
Krowinski referenced “a violation” of House Sexual Harassment Policy; the caucus referred to “a complaint” filed by a single “impacted member.” (They both commended the “impacted member” for “extraordinarily courageous action” in coming forward. Makes me think the process ought to be more welcoming to victims, but what do I know.) The clear implication: there was a single violation. Which makes his internal exile and the near-unanimous call for his head on a plate seem, well, a bit harsh?
We’d never know anything more if House leadership had their way, since Krowinski’s letter referenced a “confidential stipulation agreement” between the House Panel and Hooper. Yeah, like every other legislative process when it comes to sexual misconduct or ethics, the goal seems to be avoiding embarrassment rather than punishing the perps.
Fortunately we already know more, thanks to Vermont Public’s Lola Duffort. She produced by far the most comprehensive report on the matter, heavily quoted in other accounts, based on “a confidential document obtained by Vermont Public.” Her story also raises serious questions about how the House polices its members and its real commitment to “providing a professional work environment [with] zero tolerance for sexual harassment, discrimination, or any hostile behavior.”
Because according to Duffort, the first complaint about Hooper was made in 2022.
Four years ago.
To be fair, it was an “informal complaint,” which was resolved with Hooper informally. And, it must be said, ineffectively.
Then came a formal complaint in 2025. A year ago, more or less. Zero tolerance takes its sweet ol’ time, I guess? (Was there any sort of interim guidance offered Hooper, along the lines of “Cut it out, asshole”?)
But wait, Duffort’s got more grisly details. She reports that the Panel’s investigation…
…unearthed other “instances of alleged similar conduct” by Hooper that did not result in complaints to the panel or formal action but nevertheless “demonstrate a pattern of conduct.”
Oh boy, a “pattern of conduct” going back years. Kinda belies that whole “zero tolerance” thing, doesn’t it?
But it does help explain why leadership and almost the entire caucus want this guy gone ASAP. Once they decide you’re on the outs, they want it done immediately if not sooner. Sweep that shit under the rug and hope nobody notices the lumps.
After all this formal and informal action, Hooper seems unconvinced that he did anything wrong. He told Duffort he was “perplexed” by a process that had been “weaponized to some degree.” You know, if a serial offender remains clueless about the nature of the offense, maybe the process didn’t do its job.
There’s also an unflattering (to leadership) comparison with the matter of former lieutenant governor David Zuckerman, whose case was taken outside normal processes by Krowinski in a way that led to public exposure of details usually hidden from the public eye — exposure that came barely a week before a contested primary for LG, and if that was a coincidence I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Her reasoning was that neither the legislative process nor the state Ethics Commission applies to the statewide elected officers, so she wrote a letter to Zuckerman instead. Perhaps, but that letter was then open for disclosure through a public records request, which does not apply to the Legislature’s formal procedures or the Ethics Commission.
I won’t try to compare the seriousness of the two men’s offenses because we still don’t know enough about what Hooper did and how often he did it to how many people. But I can say that Zuckerman’s case was handled in a way that opened the door to disclosure while Hooper’s was not.
Well, not until somebody leaked that “confidential stipulation agreement” to Duffort.
The conclusion seems obvious to me. The state’s ethics processes and the Legislature’s sexual harassment process don’t work. They don’t prevent abuses, they take too long to address complaints, and they keep everything secret as much as they possibly can.
And I doubt that situation will change anytime soon, since the foxes are on duty at that particular henhouse.
The Vermont Political Observer. 
This seems to be a common flaw amongst most institutions. The longer an institution exists, the further it gets away from its stated goals and it becomes more and more about preserving the institution itself. It’s an odd mixture of needing to recognize the importance of legislative duties and respecting “the process” while not getting too caught up in sniffing their own farts to the point they deem “the process” more important than the results. It’s tough because when people do something serious they begin to take themselves too seriously, and if I’ve learned anything watching American politics, we’re not serious people.
Either Hooper’s indiscretions/actions were serious/obvious enough to need immediate removal and the public should know, or they’re still being investigated and determined and the public doesn’t need to know. If it’s the latter then there needs to be a way to sideline elected officials during an investigation that doesn’t tip the scales one way or the other and doesn’t lead to any sort of chilling action for anyone involved in the process. Part of the problem is that 24/7 news is potentially problematic since we produce and consume news faster and at greater scale than events occur. It doesn’t allow for nuance and thought to be put into the matter. I am of course, speaking from the reader and viewers perspective.
They’ve certainly messed this whole thing up though. Is it one violation or many? Was it now or 2022? What was the final incident that led to this if not the 2022 incident? Were the people who are currently enforcing these rules the same ones who were all present in 2022. They can keep this anonymous and protect the victim(s), but also tell us if it was one person being harassed or several. Ultimately, it seems that most secrets get out eventually and “sunshine is the best disinfectant.” When this is all over, should more information come out, there needs to be a large discussion about the process that isn’t only about this one instance and which can prevent this from happening again.
Finally, I have to wonder, how much of this is generational? I know a lot of old men and they have very different standards of what is acceptable behaviour. From language to general viewpoints. There are those who profess beliefs that adhere to more modern views, but who give themselves a pass on certain things because they’re “from a different time” or they are “allies doing their best.” I recognize both of those things and admit that it can be difficult to keep up given we’ve probably gone through more technological change and as a result far more cultural change in the last century than through most of human civilization at any other point. But that has its limits and when I read the news it seems to be an issue on a planetary scale. Old men grasping hard on a world slipping out of their hands, and if they can’t control it, they’ll crush it.