Tag Archives: Peter Shumlin

The political significance of the state [bleep] chair

8 Replies

First it was Seven Days, and now it’s VTDigger, reporting on State Rep. Bob Helm’s hidden-camera appearance in a TV report about the American Legislative Exchange Council. ALEC is the organization that spreads conservative policy ideas and provides sample legislation to Republican lawmakers nationwide.

Helm was attending an ALEC conference when he was buttonholed by someone he didn’t know was a TV reporter. He told her he was “the state [bleep], the state chair of ALEC,” and acknowledged that lobbyists had helped pay the freight for him and numerous other lawmakers.

The reporting raises questions of ethics and influence-peddling; but to this Political Observer, the most interesting aspect is the growing influence of ALEC in Vermont Republican circles.

Helm boasted to VTDigger that “he has ‘revved up’ the ALEC chapter in Vermont and has boosted the number of members to 20, up from four just a few years ago.”

I’d love to see that membership list. I’ve heard, for instance, that Burlington Rep. Kurt Wright, who tries very hard to position himself as a moderate, is an ALEC member. That may or may not be true, but Wright did push very hard in this year’s session for a bill banning teacher strikes — an idea that’s been promoted by ALEC in other states.

But the bigger point is, 20 may not seem like a lot, but it’s a substantial fraction of the Republican legislative caucus.

Continue reading →

Things I learned at the Statehouse (or, My First Listicle!)

3 Replies

I’ve been blogging about Vermont politics for almost three and a half years (first at Green Mountain Daily and then here), but this was the first year I spent considerable time observing the Legislature at work. In previous years, I’d dropped in here and there, but I became an irregular regular this time around.

In addition to following the fates of particular bills, I also took away some overall lessons. Many of them actually positive. And here they are, in no particular order.

— Our lawmakers work pretty hard. They get paid a pittance, and spend lots and lots of hours under the Dome. Seemingly endless hearings and debates, having to actually read and understand legislation: I wouldn’t have the patience for it. And their attendance record is shockingly good. Many of them have real jobs and/or travel long distances to Montpelier; on any given day, almost all of them are there.

— There’s always plenty of partisan rhetoric flying around, but people who disagree on the issues work surprisingly well together. This is especially true in committees, where a small group of folks work collaboratively, and cooperatively. It’s not all peaches and cream, but there were times when I was watching a committee debate and it was hard to tell which lawmaker came from which party.

Not that they were selling out; just that they were more interested in getting stuff done than in scoring political points.

Continue reading →

Kremlinology: Sorrell on the outs?

Leave a reply

h/t Snoop Dogg.

h/t Snoop Dogg.

Poor, poor Bill Sorrell. Our embattled Attorney General faces an independent investigation by straight shooter Tom Little. His unwarranted crackdown on Dean Corren’s minuscule offense has cost him many a friend at the Statehouse.

Strike that. I don’t think he’s ever had very many “friends.” But lately it’s become acceptable to express one’s disdain for a man who ought to be a pillar of the Vermont Democratic Party by dint of seniority alone. Instead, many Dems are hoping against hope that Chittenden County State’s Attorney TJ Donovan will again challenge Sorrell in the party primary.

Indeed, it may not be too strong to say that Sorrell has become a pariah. Evidence: On two recent occasions, Governor Shumlin has held justice-related media events. In both cases, Donovan was conspicuously close to the Governor.

And in both cases, the state’s top law enforcement official was nowhere to be seen.

Continue reading →

The most important thing that happened this week

Leave a reply

… had nothing to do with the Legislature. Well, it had nothing to do with current legislative debates.

And it went uncovered by the media except for Nancy Remsen of Seven Days.

Four representatives of Optum, the contractor working with the state to fix Vermont Health Connect, told legislative leaders Thursday that they expect to deliver an automated change-of-circumstance function as of the May 31 deadline set by the Shumlin administration.

“We are confident we will make the deadline,” Matt Stearns, vice president of external communications, said in an interview after private sessions with legislators.

This is big, assuming Stearns’ confidence is warranted.

I spend a lot of time on the ins and outs of the legislative and political process. It’s fun, it’s dramatic, and it’s a minefield of slapstickery. But I know that most of it washes out in the end. With the probable exception of the Norm McAllister saga, the world will little note nor long remember what was done here. But Optum making the deadline would be truly impactful.

Continue reading →

The vultures gather with unseemly haste

1 Reply

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 →

Tom Little: The right choice for the job

1 Reply

I’m sure it’s a coincidence (paging Mr. Coriell), but Governor Shumlin chose today to announce his choice of independent investigator to look into Eternal General Bill Sorrell’s campaign finance activities. On a Friday, and on a Friday when a sitting State Senator did a perp walk after his arraignment on sex-crime charges.

But the hiring is noteworthy, and from all appearances, Shumlin made a fine choice. Tom Little appears to be above reproach in his personal conduct, and even-handed in his political dealings. The only drawback — and to some it’s a very significant one — is that he doesn’t have any experience as a prosecutor. His legal practice has mainly been in corporate and real estate law.

Little served ten years a Republican State Representative. He distinguished himself greatly in the fight for civil unions. In this age of widespread marriage equality, that might seem like ancient history; but it was only 15 years ago, and at the time it was a legal milestone and a red-hot controversy. An August 2000 profile piece by Seven Days’ Kevin Kelley called him “the single most influential figure in steering the [civil unions] legislation to narrow passage.” As chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Kelly writes, he “helped persuade other moderate Republicans to vote on their conscience, not their fears.”

He’s currently a top exec at the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation, and he’s got a list of public service activities as long as your arm. And someone with much more knowledge than I characterizes Little as a “straight shooter, non-corruptible.” But here’s the point where my cynicism threw in the towel: according to a bio I’ve seen, he “currently serves as Chancellor of the Episcopal Diocese of Vermont.”

Good grief. Who is this guy, the reincarnation of Jimmy Stewart?

I don’t know Tom Little, never met him. But apart from the lack of prosecutorial experience, it’s very hard to find any fault with the choice. Not bad for a Friday newsdump. (Sorry, Scott.)

Shumlin on vaccine exemption bill: No, but maybe, but yes, or possibly N/A

Leave a reply

Today, State Health Commissioner Dr. Harry Chen testified before the House Health Care Committee on H.98, a bill that would do a number of things but most famously end the philosophical exemption to childhood vaccines.

I’ll be writing about that hearing in a while, but first… After the hearing, Chen spoke with a small pack of reporters: Dave Gram, Paris Achen, me. Most of the conversation was about Gov. Shumlin’s position on H.98. And as Gram and Achen have reported, Chen characterized the Governor as “neutral” on the bill.

Which in itself was news, because in 2012 Shumlin blocked a bill to end the philosophical exemption. Instead, he supported a bill to improve data collection and educational efforts on vaccination.

Since then, he has said he wanted to allow time to let that law work before reopening the question. But this year he hasn’t closed the door to ending the philosophical exemption; he’s just expressed a desire not to have the debate.

So here’s what Chen said today, and it goes beyond mere neutrality.

I think the Governor’s position is that he’s neutral; he understands that the Legislature has decided to take this up, and will support whatever comes out of this Legislature. And if there are other things, you should ask him, not me.

I read that as an affirmation that Shumlin will sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

Of course, it was only yesterday that Shumlin told reporters “I don’t expect the vaccination bill to get to me.” Profiles in courage?

Right now, the House is considering whether to concur with the Senate amendment that would eliminate the philosophical exemption. After three days of testimony, the Health Care Committee has scheduled a public hearing Monday at 5:30. The Legislature is scheduled to adjourn on Saturday the 16th. House leaders could hold a vote on H.98 next week; they could also decide to kick the can down the road and save the Governor the trouble of deciding where he stands.

Shunned by the vaxxers

5 Replies

Was it something I said? Yes, I’m sure it was.

Sometime today, the Twitter voice of Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice cut me off. They blocked me from reading their Tweets.

Let me mark the occasion by reproducing the last Tweet I ever got from them.

Stay classy, folks. As your lobbyist Keith (my mistake, his name is Kevin, I know that, I’ve spoken with him often and have a lot of respect for him) Ellis is probably trying to tell you, you’ll attract more flies with honey than vinegar. Or as I Tweeted in response to the above:

And that’s when they cut me off.

Methinks the vaxxers are feeling the heat. The last rounds of the vaccine saga are playing out at the Statehouse this week and next. There’s one more day of testimony before the House Health Care Committee — including a long-awaited appearance by Dr. Harry Chen, Vermont’s Health Commissioner. After that, it remains to be seen whether H.98, a bill that would remove the philosophical exemption, will be heard on the House floor.

From what I hear, the votes could be had; but House leadership might decide to put it on ice for the year. They have the always-plausible “out of time” excuse in their back pockets, and Governor Shumlin has reportedly said he doesn’t expect the bill to reach his desk.

In which case, we’d wait till next year. Between now and then, either of two events would absolutely tip the balance against the philosophical exemption: a breakout of a vaccine-preventable illness, or a continuing decline in childhood vaccination rates. We’ll hope it’s the latter, not the former.

The vicious circle of taxation rhetoric

4 Replies

Ah, spring. The buddling of the trees, the blossoming of the daffodils, the abrupt transition from shoveling snow to tending the yard.

And the annual flowering of complaints from conservatives, businesses, and Peter Shumlin about how Democrats want to tax everything. Look at all these tax proposals: sales tax on services, new limits on tax deductions, sugary beverage tax, candy, tobacco, payroll tax, development fees and farm-fertilizer taxes, plastic bag fee, fee hikes for various professions, tax on vending machines, and I’m sure I’m missing a few others.

Take them all together, and you have a picture of Montpelier liberals trying to squeeze the lifeblood out of our economy by taxing everything in sight.

There’s a problem with that. Nobody in Montpelier wants to “tax everything.” Not a single Democrat, not a single Progressive. Here’s the reality.

Continue reading →

Somebody’s ethical compass needs a tune-up

1 Reply

Congratulations to Governor Shumlin for finding the time in his busy schedule to do something about Eternal General Bill Sorrell.

Like Sorrell, the Governor couldn’t see the seriousness of the situation on his own; he had to be dragged kicking and screaming. I hope his moral compass is truer in other areas, though I fear not.

Also, the next time he pleads a lack of time to deal with an inconvenient issue, we’ll know it’s bullshit.

But that’s not my primary topic for this missive. No, that would be the Vermont media’s widespread failure to address the Sorrell story until it smacked them between the eyes.

Not all are equally guilty, and I’ll offer a ranking below. But their failure in the Sorrell case is sadly typical of the Vermont media’s myopia when it comes to the foibles of the powerful. There’s a presumption of innocence, a reluctance to challenge, that’s uncharacteristic of the media at its best.

Let’s take John Campbell, for instance. In late February, Seven Days’ Terri Hallenbeck wrote about the Senate President Pro Tem having “quietly increased his office’s staffing and more than doubled his payroll.”

The response from the Vermont media? Crickets.

Admittedly the dollars involved are not large — we’re talking roughly $55,000 before and $110,000 after — but big stories have been spun out of smaller stuff. Usually involving a nameless functionary, not an elite officeholder. (Anybody ever hear of William Goggins until this month?)

Why did Campbell get a free pass? I have no idea, but it reflects poorly on our fourth-estate watchdogs.

Continue reading →