Tag Archives: Seven Days

House conferees close the gambling back door

Sen. Kevin Mullin’s attempts to sneak pro-gambling language into a pair of unrelated bills has failed, thanks to the efforts of House conferees.

Mullin craps out.

Mullin craps out.

I first wrote about this last week; the day before yesterday, another Vermont media source finally decided to pursue the story. VPR’s Bob Kinzel had more detail than I did — although he focused on one of Mullin’s maneuvers and missed the other. Still, if you want more information, do read his piece.

To recap, Mullin slipped language into a consumer protection bill that laid out consumer protections for daily fantasy sports — an activity deemed by Eternal General Bill Sorrell to be illegal. Which seems contradictory: why regulate an illegal industry? (That’s the one Kinzel missed.) And into the big budget bill, he inserted language that would have allowed the Lottery Commission more leeway in placing electronic gaming machines in bars and restaurants — possibly including Keno and video poker.

The part I failed to catch was that the current gaming-machine pilot program is set to expire this summer. Mullin’s amendment would have removed the sunset and broadened the definition of acceptable machines. His amendment had the support of Lottery Director Greg Smith, who is under pressure to grow revenues.

Which, given the current EB-5 scandal, is kind of ironic. A central problem with EB-5 was that a single agency was tasked with regulating AND promoting the same activity. And here’s the Lottery Commission, regulating AND promoting the same activity. Conflict of interest, anyone?

Continue reading

Welp, the mouse died.

Earlier this week, I wrote a post about the marijuana debate entitled “They labored mightily and brought forth a mouse.”

Turned out I was overly optimistic, because the mouse didn’t make it.

No legalization. No grow-your-own. And as for the House’s idea of a study commission (thx to Seven Days’ Terri Hallenbeck, who never would’ve gotten this into the Free Press):

“Fuck the commission,” a frustrated Senate Judiciary Committee chair Dick Sears (D-Bennington) said after his effort to create a public advisory vote failed. “The commission was unnecessary.”

Agreed. Especially since the commission would have apparently been funded with money diverted from opioid treatment. Sheesh.

The only good thing about this: the House’s brilliant idea of a new saliva test for buzzed driving also failed. That’s the test with no clear scientific basis, according to a state-sponsored study.

Continue reading

Profiles in Porridge

This week has turned into a festival of schadenfreude for liberals, as we watch Republicans of all stripes coming to grips with their putative nominee, Donald Trump. The reactions can be broken down into three categories, none terribly edifying.

Resignation and acceptance. Many Republicans and conservative commentators who staunchly opposed The Donald are now busily explaining why he’s really not that bad.

Some of these people can’t bear to utter the man’s name; they simply say they will support “the Republican nominee,” whoever that is.

Phony re-evaluation. These folks, like the insufferable Joe Scarborough, say they will decide based on how The Donald comports himself from now on. As if he didn’t have a lifelong record of being a self-entitled woman-hating narcissist, and a year-long record of conduct unbecoming a major-party nominee.

Denial. Some insist they will never vote for The Donald, although most refuse to say what they might do instead. A few are opting for Hillary Clinton, but most are temporizing. Which begs the question, is Clinton really worse than Donald Trump by any rational metric?

Here in Vermont, we have one gubernatorial candidate (Bruce Lisman) in category two, and one (Phil Scott) in category three.

Not that Republicans have any good options, but neither man is covering himself in glory.

Continue reading

Galbraith’s strange bedfellow

The self-described progressive choice for Governor, Peter Galbraith, took a trip inside the Beltway Monday night to attend a megadollar fundraiser for his gubernatorial campaign.

As reported by Seven Days’ Paul Heintz, the top ticket price for the fete was $4,000, although you could get your foot in the door for a measly $250.

The mere fact of a DC fundraiser doesn’t bother me overmuch, although (as Heintz pointed out) it’s a bit ironic for a guy who’s made such a stink about the excessive influence of money in politics. He claims the mantle of Bernie Sanders, but he’s fundraising like Jeb Bush. Still, you’ve got to play the game by the rules as they stand, even if you’d like to see them changed. And I’m sure Galbraith has plenty of generous friends in our nation’s capital.

No, something else stood out for me.

Continue reading

Siting bill: a good deal that nobody will like

It was a heck of a last act by Tony Klein, retiring chair of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee. This week, he shepherded an energy siting bill through the House and on to a conference committee. His reward: the bill’s drawing fire from both sides. It even sparked astoundingly different takes from VTDigger (emphasizing the dissatisfaction of opponents) and Seven Days (reporting a “surprising change in direction” by the House).

The key provision in the bill would give “substantial deference” in siting decisions to local governments — if they have adopted a state-approved energy plan. It’s not enough for supporters of local control.

“You get substantial deference … if you do what they want you to do,” said Rep. Cynthia Browning, D-Arlington. “That’s not substantial deference in my definition of the word. It doesn’t seem like substantial deference or any greater decision-making power for localities to me.”

On the other hand, some renewable-energy proponents worry that the bill would make it harder for Vermont to reach its energy goals. Anthony Iarrapino, a lawyer who represents renewable developers, told Seven Days “We’re not going to get to the targets with solar in parking lots and a single wind turbine in backyards.”

Continue reading

Private lives and public figures

 

I got a girlfriend that’s better than that
She has the smoke in her eyes
She’s moving up, going right through my house
She’s gonna give me surprise

— Talking Heads, “Girlfriend is Better”

So. In his latest “Fair Game” column, Seven Days’ Paul Heintz let slip a little secret that pretty much everyone under the Golden Dome knew about but didn’t mention in polite company. Right there in Paragraph 29:

[John] Campbell’s girlfriend, Rep. Patti Komline (R-Dorset), also opposes the bill.

Gasp! Horrors! The Ladies’ Auxiliary clutches their pearls as one!

(Is Paul OK? Was he struck down by lightning?)

(Guess not.)

Used to be, in the broader world of politics, personal relationships were off limts. Even when, say, the Kennedy Boys were sharing the charms of Marilyn Monroe. Allegedly.

That wall has been largely breached in national politics, at least when there’s a substantive reason to report the private peccadillos of pols. But it remains intact here in Vermont. And maybe it shouldn’t.

Continue reading

Let’s not let ’em rewrite history

Governor Shumlin calls the Stengerville Scandal “a dark day for Vermont.” Well, no, not really.

It’s a bad day for the Northeast Kingdom. For the rest of Vermont, it’s not going to make much of a difference. Not in economic terms, anyway.

No, the day is darkest, by far, for Vermont’s political and business elite, who have eagerly promoted this project for years, and have done Captain Renault proud in overseeing a couple of guys who spun a tale too good to be true, and who turned out to be fraudsters on a massive scale.

A lot of smart people acted like rubes. They were completely taken in by the immigration equivalent of a Nigerian email scam. And many of them should be held to account. My own list includes the past two Governors (the fraud began “from day one” in 2008, which means it was the Douglas administration that orchestrated this deal and established the regulatory process that failed so spectacularly), the past three Secretaries of Commerce and Community Development, the various bureaucrats who were directly tasked with EB-5 oversight, top lawmakers from both parties, business leaders who might have realized it was in their interest to avoid an embarrassing and wide-ranging financial scandal in their backyards, and various and sundry members of the political establishment — whose number, IMO, includes one Phil Scott, a contented and connected establishmentarian since 2002, I believe.

The day is even darker for would-be immigrant investors, many of whom will not only never see their money again, but will also never get their green cards. But hey, they’re just a buncha foreigners, so whatever.

As far as I know, nobody has yet asked Governor Douglas or his top economic-development officials any hard questions about the creation of the Stenger/Quiros EB-5 project, which happened under his watch. Douglas happily traveled around the world on Stenger’s dime (cough, I mean, his foreign marks’ dime) promoting the project, thus helping Stenger and Quiros perpetrate their massive fraud.

I do hope somebody pins down Jim Douglas on all of this. We need to know how it happened so we can prevent it from ever happening again.

As for Governor Shumlin, still busily depicting himself as the hero of this two-bit melodrama, well, more evidence that he’s just blowing smoke comes to us from a younger Paul Heintz, writing in Seven Days a full four years ago. 

Reminder: Shumlin is asserting that he started feeling queasy about Stengerville in 2014, which led to transferring oversight from ACCD to the Department of Financial Regulation. It was the DFR’s bloodhounds who did much to uncover the scam.

Which doesn’t explain why Shumlin resolutely kept his doubts to himself until the scandal broke wide open this week. It also doesn’t explain why Shumlin didn’t think anything was wrong until 2014, since there were definite signs of trouble a full two years earlier. Take it away, Younger Paul Heintz, dateline April 4, 2012:

… one of Jay Peak’s closest associates, Rapid USA Visas, recently disparaged Stenger and his company by publicly severing its ties with the resort and questioning its financial health.

For five years, Rapid USA had worked closely with Jay Peak to attract foreign investors.

… That changed [in March 2012], when hundreds of immigration attorneys around the world received an email from the firm that announced, “Rapid USA no longer has confidence in the accuracy of representations made by Jay Peak, Inc., or in the financial status of and disclosures made by [it].”

Now, there’s a big red flag if ever I saw one. A company whose business is enabling EB-5 programs suddenly backs away from Stenger. And, pray tell, how did the Shumlin administration respond?

“We, of course, wanted to take a closer look, so we spent the entire day at Jay after that letter,” says James Candido, who directs the state’s EB-5 program at the Agency of Commerce and Community Development. “There was absolutely nothing that was out of the ordinary.”

A day.

A day.

A whole bleepin’ day. Presumably in the company of Stenger and friends. And presumably the state Commerce officials didn’t have the accounting expertise that, say, the Department of Financial Regulation could bring to bear.

Wouldn’t have mattered anyway, because ONE FRICKIN’ DAY is not enough to untangle a carefully-constructed fraudulent enterprise. It is enough to share a drink with good ol’ Bill Stenger and fill up on his silver-tongued reassurances.

(By the way, would it surprise you in the slightest to hear that Mr. Candido left ACCD in 2012 to take a job with a Boston law firm developing an EB-5 project out west? No? Oh, you cynical bastard. Welcome to the club.)

This wasn’t the only red flag concerning EB-5 in Vermont that predated Shumlin’s self-proclaimed Eureka moment. Heintz goes on to recount the sad story of DreamLife, a Canadian company that promised to use EB-5 money to build four luxurious senior-living complexes in Vermont.

Problem: DreamLife was basically a company whose sole function was to attract EB-5 investors and skim off commissions. And the company was spectacularly unsuccessful; it never attracted investors, and never even began acquiring land for its developments.

Former DreamLife employee Douglas Littlefield says the company has reneged on numerous business commitments. “Personally, I don’t think he should have been allowed to come to Vermont,” says Littlefield, who was hired two years ago to scout potential sites. “I wish anyone who works with him good luck.”

“He” is DreamLife founder Richard Parenteau, a man with a checkered past who had to cut ties with DreamLife when his legal entanglements in Canada prevented him from crossing the border to do business in the States. And what Littlefield is saying, basically, is “How in hell did the state of Vermont let this guy get a foot in the door?”

You can read many more details at Heintz’ 2012 piece, which is strongly recommended. Suffice it to say, there was a hell of a lot of smoke, and even some visible flames, around Vermont’s EB-5 program long before Shumlin attained clarity in 2014. The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow was too enticing for Shumlin to start asking questions about EB-5 until he had no choice.

He chooses to start his narrative from a point in time that makes him look good. Or at least not quite so bad. We shouldn’t let him get away with it.

Nor should we let Shumlin take all the blame. Jim Douglas, what say you? Any regrets? Any apologies for the EB-5 investors you helped ensnare in Stenger’s web of deceit?

Phil Scott, you’re casting postdated aspersions about Shumlin’s oversight of Stengerville. What’s your record on EB-5 projects? Have you touted EB-5 as a valuable tool for economic development? Have you been there, smiling and punching shoulders, at project unveilings? Have you cozied up to EB-5 developers? Have you gone on any junkets?

As for the rest of you… well, you know who you are, and your time will come.

Foxes Establish Henhouse Access Rules

Here’s another sign that Vermont’s Founding Fathers may have been drunk when they wrote our Constitution. Which, among other flaws, appears to give the Legislature sole authority over its own ethics.

Today, the Senate Rules Committee showed why that’s such a bad idea. While the Judiciary Committee has been busily slashing a proposed Ethics Commission into a glorified filing cabinet, the Rules Committee has been developing a parallel process for its own members.

Today, the Rules Committee adopted an ethics process for the Senate. And according to Seven Days’ Nancy Remsen, the Senate ethics process is designed, first and foremost, to ensure that its members are protected from public embarrassment. (To clarify: she didn’t say that, I did. But her outline of the procedure allows no other interpretation.)

As I’ve written before, the House Ethics Panel is a sorry-ass excuse for a watchdog. The Senate ethics panel won’t be any better, and may be significantly worse.

Continue reading

The State Senate, where leadership goes to die

Yesterday, the State Senate took up S.230, the energy siting bill.

And promptly dropped it on the floor, kicked it around, and stomped it into mush, in a particularly unedifying display of sausage-making. A four-and-a-half hour debate included a blizzard of amendments — some adopted and some never even considered — and produced a result that satisfied no one on either side of the debate. Including many of the Senators who actually voted to pass the much-amended bill, Seven Days’ Paul Heintz Terri Hallenbeck:

By 7 p.m., when the final vote came, the majority of the senators appeared to be voting for the bill just to put an end to the day’s events.

Democracy in action, folks.

I wasn’t there, but from media accounts, this has the greasy fingerprints of Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell all over it. His tenure has been marked by frequent breakdowns in process, and headstrong senators taking advantage of the situation. This was classic Campbell: helpless to steer a complicated course through the reefs of strongly-held viewpoints and the shallows of senatorial ego.

Continue reading

I gotta say, sometimes it’s just nice to live in Vermont

I have often been critical of Vermonters’ exaggerated perception of their own inherent virtue. We’re far from perfect on race relations; there are subtle forms of sexism here that I haven’t seen elsewhere; and, of course, our vaunted reputation for environmentalism is largely due to forces out of our control: small population, not much industry, and lack of exploitable resources. Based on how we’ve handled Lake Champlain, or the damage done when we HAVE had the opportunity to do so (the Elizabeth Mine, the PFOA contamination around Bennington), I contend that if there was a lot of coal under the Green Mountains, we’d be West Virginia North.

But while I contend that Vermont isn’t as special as we think it is, I readily acknowledge that it definitely has its virtues. We have two examples from recent headlines, where other states are pursuing destructive, hateful paths while we quietly handle our business in a positive manner.

Example #1: the Vermont House passes — with broad bipartisan tripartisan support — a bill that would guarantee women’s access to contraception even if that section of Obamacare is repealed.

Example #2: The Agency of Education issues guidelines for supporting transgender and gender-nonconforming students.

Continue reading