Tag Archives: Sarah Mearhoff

An Especially Unsettling Spin of a Familiar Revolving Door

4 Replies

There’s nothing illegal about this. It happens all the time. But this particular instance has a bit of a stench about it.

I’m talking about Sarah Mearhoff’s departure from VTDigger. Mearhoff has been the Statehouse bureau chief for Digger, the lead author of its “Daily Briefing” newsletter and its top political reporter throughout this campaign season. She announced her departure last Friday on the accursed platform once known as Twitter. She did not reveal her next professional destination.

But now we know. Mearhoff is crossing over to the dark side. She’s been hired as director of advocacy and communications for the Associated General Contractors of Vermont.

Chief lobbyist, in other words. For one of the most powerful and connected interest groups in Montpelier. Until December 14, Mearhoff was reporting on the doings of our representatives under the Dome. In less than three weeks, she’ll be trying to influence those same people on behalf of Vermont’s road builders and construction magnates, a.k.a. Phil Scott’s favorite people in the whole world.

Continue reading →

Darkness on the Edge of the Capitol Complex

Leave a reply

A good piece of political journalism will accomplish two things: It will explain what’s been happening and give you a peek at what’s ahead. VTDigger’s Sarah Mearhoff accomplished both in her recent look back at the 2024 legislative session, specifically the bitter divide between Gov. Phil Scott and the Dem/Prog supermajorities. It’s obvious that the rarely healthy relationship took a measurable turn for the worse in 2024.

The best bit — the Rosetta Stone that explains it all — goes back to the very end of the 2023 session, when the Legislature overrode six Scott vetoes. That’s a huge number. Overrides have been extremely rare throughout Vermont history. I haven’t done a deep dive, but I’ll bet that six is the all-time record for a single year. Scott comms director Rebecca Kelley called the veto session “eye-opening,” and Senate President Pro Tem Phil Baruth believes that was when the governor changed course:

“I think at that point, they had their own existential moment where they said, ‘We have to get super aggressive and go after these people,’” Baruth said.

Longtime Statehouse lobbyist Rebecca Ramos noted the “breakdown in communication” this year and added there was “just not a lot of interest in repairing it.”

Continue reading →

Final Reading Needs an Attitude Adjustment

6 Replies

Now that the legislative session (minus override day) is in the rearview, it’s time to address Final Reading, VTDigger’s self-described “inside guide to the Statehouse.” That might be technically accurate, but it was the glossy, gossipy kind of “inside guide,” not the kind that provides insight. More often than not, it failed to dig beneath the surface. Instead, it picked up shiny trinkets and held them aloft as if proffering precious gems.

I could enumerate, and I will. But I need to emphasize, up front, that there’s nothing inherently wrong with snark or cynicism or the occasional eyeroll or even barf emoji. The real problem is Final Reading’s posture of contempt for its subject. The legislative process is boring, don’t you know. It’s a real drag. It’ll bore you to tears or put you to sleep or at least make you all hangry.

Earlier this year, one of Digger’s staff reporters tweeted out a recommendation for Final Reading as — paraphrasing here — a newsletter for people who don’t like politics.

I’m sorry, but no. That’s precisely backwards. Final Reading is for people who are interested in state politics and policymaking and want to know more. The people who don’t like politics are not reading VTDigger at all, much less a daily precís of all things Statehouse. Know your audience, people.

Continue reading →

A Big Fat Final Reading FAIL

3 Replies

The Friday edition of VTDigger’s “Final Reading” was a dereliction of journalistic duty. It was a failure by reporter Sarah Mearhoff and whoever edited and approved this piece.

Why? Well, the subject was the Senate Appropriations Committee’s all-afternoon discussion of the FY2025 budget. At the end of the day, the panel voted out a budget and sent it on to the full Senate.

That much we know. What we don’t get a shred of information about is… what was in the budget? We read about benumbed butts and Senatorial wisecracks and staffers rushing around with revision after revision of the budget and late-afternoon hunger pangs. We hear about Our Fearless Scribe discovering, to her relief, “a protein bar squished at the bottom of her bag.”

It’s not that I mind a bit of fluff. It can add some color and a sense of humanity to the proceedings. But for Pete’s sake, leave some space for the substance.

Continue reading →

VTDigger Coughs Up a Hairball, Calls it Caviar

16 Replies

The headline is dramatic. “Former campaign staffer sues Democratic gubernatorial candidate Brenda Siegel for unpaid wages, expenses.” Wow, sounds serious.

Well, it’s not. In fact, the story is so bereft of substance that it makes you wonder how it got published at all.

For starters, the “former campaign staffer,” Bryan Parks, worked for the Siegel campaign for less than a month. The amount of money in question is less than $600.

Six hundred dollars.

Reporter Sarah Mearhoff, who will not be submitting this shitball for any journalism prizes, gives over the first six paragraphs to Parks’ account, his disillusionment with the candidate, his insistence that it’s not about the money, and how he waited until after the election to file his suit “so as not to appear politically motivated.”

And only then, after Parks is given all that space, do we get Siegel’s response: “No, I don’t owe him any money. He is completely paid up.”

Well, there you go, right? Game, set, match, right?

Er, no.

Continue reading →

A Whole Lotta Scofflaws in High Places

1 Reply

Running update: Sen. Brian Campion, named below as having failed to file, did actually file. Four other lawmakers — Sen. Phil Baruth and Reps. Martin Lalonde, Emily Long and Seth Chase — say they zeroed out their accounts after the 2020 election and have neither raised nor spent more than $500 since, so they don’t have to file.

Updated update. I haven’t heard from any more lawmakers (so far), but I’ve written a second post explaining this exemption in more detail.

Well, if Jim Condos won’t do it, and Sarah Mearhoff won’t do it, I guess I have to.

Allow me to explain.

Last Friday, VTDigger’s always informative Final Reading kicked off with an item about lawmakers failing to abide by the law. Specifically, dozens of them have yet to file campaign finance reports that were due on March 15. Secretary of State Condos sent an email to lawmakers asking that they comply but refused to identify the scofflaws, saying “I can’t be their babysitter,” which kind of implies that they need one. Reporter Mearhoff also demurred from naming names, but teasingly said “I know who you are.”

Gee, and here I thought it was a reporter’s job to tell us what they know. Maybe space reasons? After all, the list of noncompliers is 69 names long. That’s almost 40% of the 180 “public servants” in the Legislature. Forty percent.

Mearhoff also reminded us that when the Legislature wrote the law, it refused to include any penalties for failing to file. That’s pretty standard fare for laws touching on their own interests; lawmakers jealously guard their privileges when it comes to campaign finance and ethics and reapportionment and such. Which leaves us with the plastic épée of public shaming, which rarely manages to penetrate a lawmaker’s skin.

Before I get to naming names, I should say that any mistakes are my responsibility and I will gladly make corrections if any of those listed below can show that they did, in fact, file as required by law. Also, this list was made on the morning of April 5; any reports filed after that are not reflected below.

Continue reading →