I feel so proud.
In announcing his complete reversal on the need for a Senate ethics panel, Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell put his finger squarely on the source of the problem.
The panel would also give a lawmaker accused of wrongdoing an opportunity to refute allegations made by “journalists or bloggers.” Campbell said lawmakers need a place “where people can go to clear their name if someone makes an accusation.”
Aww, John. I didn’t know you cared.
Less than two weeks ago, Seven Days‘ Paul Heintz revealed that Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell had gotten a job with the Windsor County State’s Attorney under what can only be called questionable circumstances.
Last year, Campbell actively lobbied for the job on behalf of the SA, who happens to be a neighbor of his. After the job went through, Campbell inquired about it, and was hired without any search process.
In the story, Heintz raised the issue of creating a Senate Ethics Committee, which currently does not exist. Campbell, sounding a lot like Bill Sorrell attesting to Bill Sorrell’s innocence:
“We really haven’t talked about it,” Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell (D-Windsor) said earlier this year. “I can’t remember the last time there was something that even came close to a question of someone’s ethics.”
Well, you can file that one in the Ron Ziegler Memorial “Inoperative” File. What’s changed?
Good Ol’ Norm, that’s what.
Update: Seven Days has just posted a story with more unsavory details. See below.
Things are not looking bright for Good Ol’ Norm. More details came out Friday on the criminal charges against Sen. Norm McAllister; and if you’re not completely skeeved out by them, well, your Skeeve-O-Meter needs a tuneup.
The case against G.O.N. “suggest[s] that McAllister for years used his power over vulnerable women,” reports Seven Days’ Mark Davis:
In December 2012, a woman moved into a trailer home McAllister owned in Franklin and began working at his farm. From the beginning, he asked her for sexual favors in exchange for allowing her to keep her job and home, affidavits say.
Reminder: McAllister’s late wife was still alive when this got started. Extra bonus skeeve points.
There’s a whole parade of horrors in the police documents, with three women alleging nonconsensual sex with McAllister — oral, vaginal, and anal, on dozens and dozens of occasions, sometimes causing pain. And, according to a Sunday evening report on Seven Days, one of his victims may have been below the age of legal consent when the assaults began.
But the low point, IMO, was this:
McAllister also proposed transporting her to area farms so she could perform sex acts on “Mexican” farmhands. He proposed they split the proceeds. She refused.
Eeeeeeeuuuuuuuucccccch. And this is a guy who was an aggressive moralist in his politics.
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.)
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.
The Burlington Free Press takes tremendous pride in its scoops. Front-page placement, social media bragging. It’ll also follow up endlessly, whether fresh developments warrant it or not. And sometimes the “scoops” aren’t worth the paper they’re (at least for now) printed on.
Its pride in the Liquor Control Commission overtime affair is justified. Mike Donoghue discovered an abuse of the system and aired it out. One result: the amazingly well-timed retirement of Commissioner Michael Hogan.
Great. Good work. But I find it awfully curious that while the Free Press has devoted lots and lots of space to the LCC, it has published exactly one story — count it, one — about Attorney General Bill Sorrell’s refusal to investigate himself for possible campaign finance violations.
And that one story was an Associated Press production. No staff time whatsoever, as far as I can tell.
The only explanation I can think of: the story originated in Seven Days. The Free Press can’t claim credit; it’d just be playing catch-up.
If that’s not enough to get your Spidey Sense tingling, how about the fact that the Free Press has published not a word about State Police Corporal Jon Graham’s Facebook posts? The story first broke Friday night on WCAX, and has been widely re-reported elsewhere. But not in the Free Press (or on FreePressMedia).
Stories like these are usually catnip for the Free Press: allegations of official misconduct, of a kind that’s sure to generate pageviews and controversy.
Sorrell is supposedly testifying before a Senate committee this afternoon. I expect the Free Press will be there, and will report on the story — because now, it’ll have a fresh hook to hang the story on, and won’t have to credit Paul Heintz for the scoop.
Maybe I’m being too harsh. But the Free Press’ track record informs my cynicism. And for the life of me, I can think of no other explanation for Our Former Newspaper Of Record almost completely ignoring two significant stories in state government.
The cloud of questionable campaign finance activities hangs heavy around the head of Our Eternal General Bill Sorrell. Fortunately for himself, his peripheral vision isn’t so great, so he’s blissfully unaware that the storm is gathering and everyone around him is scurrying for cover.
Today brings an editorial from Vermont’s best daily newspaper, the Valley News (okay, technically a bi-state newspaper), calling for an independent probe of Sorrell’s iffy doings.
The editorial quotes Sorrell’s heartwarming assurances: “It’s unfortunately that there are questions about whether there was undue influence. I know there was no undue influence.” The News has a stiletto-sharp rejoinder:
We guess it’s reassuring that in his heart, Sorrell knows he’s right. … On the other hand, the allegations are not so far-fetched that “take my word for it” is an adequate response from the state’s chief law enforcement officer, whose position and power are such that his or her integrity needs to be above reproach.
However, in the absence of any action by Governor Shumlin — or any semblance of concern, frankly — the only folks who could mount an independent investigation are our State’s Attorneys. Well, one or more of them.
There are two problems with that scenario. Continue reading
One of the proudest moments of my blogging career was in May 2012, when Vermont Eternal General Bill Sorrell was launching his re-election campaign. In his speech, he said “I’ve been called a two-fisted attorney general, and there’s a reason for that.”
Welp, turned out that the only person who’d called him a “two-fisted attorney general” was Yours Truly. And it was meant as sarcasm.
Of course, when it comes to Himself, our E.G. suffers from extreme myopia. He can’t see that anybody might dislike or disrespect him.
But in fact, there’s widespread evidence that Sorrell is rapidly becoming the Chuck Noland of Vermont politics, marooned on a desert island, holding endless conversations with his sole companion, a volleyball named Wilson.
On top of that, there’s the continuing string of embarrassing revelations about Sorrell’s naked-emperor tenure as A.G. The latest, from Seven Days’ Paul Heintz, concerns a misbegotten lawsuit against major oil companies over the gasoline additive MTBE.
When Sorrell announced the suit last year, he billed it as a courageous gambit on behalf of consumers and the environment. But as Heintz reports, there are two big problems with that characterization:
— Sorrell filed the suit at the instigation of a top law firm that does a very healthy business in representing state Attorneys General in lucrative litigation. And routinely gives significant campaign cash to AGs like Sorrell.
— The suit was filed at a very late date, and will probably go nowhere as a result. Other states filed MTBE suits, and received big settlements, years ago. New Hampshire got its sweetheart deal way back in 2004. Which makes one wonder why the hell our Two-Fisted Eternal General didn’t take the copycat route way back then.
Apparently he couldn’t come up with the idea on his own, even though the New Hampshire suit was big news at the time. He didn’t think of it until his big-time lawyer buddies floated the idea.
Makes me wonder how many other times our T.F.E.G. was similarly asleep at the wheel. And remember, his supposed courage in taking big corporations to court is the foundation of his reputation.
The last time I wrote a piece about Sorrell’s dumbassery and possible crookery, I got a whole lot of compliments about it the next time I spent a day at the Statehouse. I have since gotten further communications that make it clear Sorrell has very few friends left in Vermont politics. Heintz’ column includes comments from some of our top officeholders who make it clear they want nothing to do with Sorrell’s increasingly self-soiled reputation.
If Bill Sorrell had any capacity for authentic self-examination, he would probably decide that this should be his last term as our T.F.E.G. He could coast out of office to broad acclaim — mainly from those who’d be relieved to see his retirement. It’d be like Derek Jeter collecting accolades while having a truly wretched 2014, playing every day and sabotaging the Yankee lineup by insisting on batting second, and yet being universally hailed as the Living Embodiment of Baseball.
However, since Bill Sorrell seems to be completely lacking in capacity for authentic self-examination, it’ll take quite a bit of persuading to convince him not to run for re-election next year. Here’s hoping the Democratic Party and its leaders are up to the task.
Also, here’s hoping TJ Donovan has the stones to challenge our T.F.E.G. once again. If he were to lose again, he’d put his political future in serious doubt. But if he were to win, or force Sorrell to take the Jeter route, he would be doing the state a huge service. We need a real Attorney General, not the uncritical doofus who currently occupies the office.
Pardon the recent light blogging; I’ve been out of town. Got some stuff to catch up on, such as the following.
Recently, Seven Days’ Paul Heintz reported that many House Republicans conveniently absented themselves when the House voted on a marriage-equality resolution. These folks, real Profiles in Courage one and all, opposed the resolution but refused to put themselves on the record doing so. Still, they made some delightfully juicy comments to Heintz, including this delightful outrage-gasm from Republican Representative and Man’s Man Tom Terenzini:
“I would have voted against the resolution because, you know, No. 1: I don’t like socialist Democrats and the Progressives shoving that crap down my throat.”
Oh, those people are so completely obsessed with things being shoved down their throats. Something you’re hiding, Tom?
Anyway, Vermont Democratic Party flack Ben Sarle couldn’t resist this Cavalcade O’ Republican Outrage, so he sent out an email blast documenting the anti-resolution comments.
Did he realize that he was also sending a link to a whole lot of anti-Bill Sorrell material?
The second half of Heintz’ column was devoted to Sorrell’s routine flouting of campaign finance reporting laws. Which is, you know, ironic and stuff because Our Eternal General claims to be our guardian angel of campaign purity.
A review of Sorrell’s recent filings shows that he has routinely ignored the rules. Sixteen times over the past four years, Sorrell’s campaign has reimbursed him for hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of dollars’ worth of expenses paid out of his own pocket. In each instance, the campaign provided only a vague explanation of what Sorrell bought with the campaign cash — and never once did it disclose who it paid.
Heintz goes on to document the incredibly under-documented state of Sorrell’s filings. If any other Vermont pol did that stuff, Sorrell would be all over them like funk on a wet dog.
It’s damning stuff. And the Vermont Democratic Party effectively blasted it to their entire list.
I’m guessing it wasn’t intentional. On the other hand, there are a lot of Dems who can’t stand the guy, see him as out of touch, mediocre, full of himself, and quite possibly corrupt. Is there any chance that this was a subtle shot across Sorrell’s bow? An indication that the party wouldn’t be averse to a primary challenge in 2016?
Oh, we can only hope.
One of my least favorite people in state government is Eternal General Bill Sorrell. According to those who were around at the time, the only reason he’s AG is that (1) he was Howard Dean’s favorite fartcatcher, (2) Dean wanted to appoint Billy to the Vermont Supreme Court but soon realized he was just about the only Vermonter who thought Sorrell was qualified, (3) Dean then appointed the incumbent Attorney General to the Supreme Court, and (4) Dean slid his acolyte into the convenient vacancy. Since then, Sorrell has enjoyed the perks of incumbency in an office few voters pay much attention to. He’s basically a guy born on third base who thinks he hit a triple. And one of my biggest peeves is politicians with unacceptably high ratios of self-image to accomplishment.
Sorrell’s most recent offense against logic is his balls-to-the-wall prosecution of Dean Corren for the unforgivable crime of accepting an in-kind donation worth $255 from the Democratic Party. This, per Sorrell, is a violation of the public financing law worthy of $70,000 in fines and restitution.
Well, a few days after I ranted about this, Seven Days’ Paul Heintz did what he does best: a journalistic take on Sorrell’s sudden Inspector Javert impersonation. In his “Fair Game” column, Heintz presented abundant evidence that Sorrell isn’t just the relatively harmless doofus I thought he was; rather, he may well be a fundamentally corrupt hack who has based his reputation on lucrative backroom deals between state Attorneys General and some of the nation’s biggest law firms.
“I’m a great guy. Just ask me.”
There’s plenty of damning stuff in the column, but I want to zero in on something deep down in the piece. It’s about a New York Times expose of “routine lobbying and deal-making” between Attorneys General and law firms trying to gin up multistate lawsuits.
You know, the very lawsuits that Sorrell endlessly trumpets.
I’d never read about this until I saw it in Heintz’ column, but boy does it stink.
These lawsuits are often over consumer-protection issues; the granddaddy of them all, and Sorrell’s favorite touchstone, was the multistate suit against the tobacco industry that resulted in a huge settlement finalized shortly after Governor Dean parachuted Young Billy into the AG’s office. Sorrell endlessly brags about the millions he brought into the treasury on that deal, even though virtually all the negotiations took place before he became AG.
I’d always just assumed that these big lawsuits were the result of cooperation among state AGs. But the Times reported that ideas for multistate lawsuits generally arise from big law firms, who then go trolling for AGs willing to sign on. These firms are nothing more than white-gloved ambulance-chasers, looking for cases they can cash in on. And share the proceeds with the states that play along.
That throws an entirely different light on these allegedly high-minded battles for our rights and pocketbooks.
Worse, Heintz recounts multiple occasions, as reported in the Times, when Sorrell accepted big campaign donations from law firms that were soliciting Vermont’s participation in one of these multistate suits. And I am shocked, shocked to report that Sorrell greenlighted the suits after accepting those donations.
Sorrell insists he is above reproach. And we’ll just have to take his word for it because he’s the one who decides whether to launch an investigation of himself. And I am shocked, shocked to report that Bill Sorrell believes there’s nothing to investigate about Bill Sorrell because Bill Sorrell has done nothing wrong.
Nice work if you can get it.
The Vermont Political Observer. 