In light of the very recent Supreme Court decision upholding a permit for JLD Properties to build a big box Walmart in St. Albans, I have a challenge to put to Governor Peter Shumlin:
Deliver to us the transparency and accountability that you pledged just months ago in your election campaign.
I bought it; hook, line and sinker; and I worked tirelessly after your nomination to see you elected.
Just three short months after you took office, I sent an e-mail on the governor’s website asking that, given the nature and intent of Act 250 permitting, science, and not just business, be represented in appointments to the District 6 Environmental Commission.
I also specifically explained the potential conflicts of interests that made businessman and Douglas appointee Dan Luneau an inappropriate choice for that commission. As I pointed out, the fact that his family has opportunistically located a big retail business at Exit 20 of I-89, where most large-scale development requiring Act 250 review is likely to occur, makes his bias permanently suspect.
That bias has already been raised as an issue at the Act 250 hearings regarding the St. Albans Walmart, but Mr. Luneau refused to recuse himself.
Vermont law, it seems, leaves it up to the individual to decide for himself whether or not he can act in a quasi-judicial role without bias.
As naive as this arrangement seems, it is worsened by the fact that there is no penalty if the individual acting in this role is found to have made a judgement that was contaminated by his conflict of interests.
Bearing all of this in mind, and in light of the fact that accountability had been so much a component of his election promises, one would think that the Governor might take very seriously the concerns raised by a District 6 resident about appointments to her local Commission.
Without recounting once again the slow exchange of phone calls and letters in a vain attempt to get the Governor to not re-appoint Mr. Luneau as Chair of the District 6 commission, I will just leave you to read all of that in the link I have provided.
Today I have been told that there is also no penalty enforceable on Bob Johnson who was the chairman of the DRB that issued the local Walmart permit, despite the fact that the Supreme Court of Vermont clearly states in its findings that his actions flagrantly violated our civil rights.
So much for accountability.
There is a culture of cronyism run wild in Vermont. It contaminates decisions on such a routine basis that most people have simply come to accept it as “just the way things get done.”
This simply is WRONG. If you can’t see that, I’m afraid there isn’t much hope for the promise of accountability.
Here then is my challenge to the Shumlin administration:
Make good on your promise. Charge the legislature with drafting a statewide ethics policy that effectively addresses conflicts of interests by establishing meaningful penalties for violations.
We deserve that much protection at least.
Diaries like this are a big part of why GMD is here. Nice to be reminded of that.
Ralph Nader reportedly once said, long ago: Of the three levels of government, state government was the best to with which to deal. The federal government was corrupted by money (true!) and local government was corrupted by cronyism (true, again). State government had not been harmfully beset by either.
Yet, after a year of the ACLU, the Vermont Press Association and others pressing on public records and open government, we are finding that Vermont is not so open and transparent afterall. And, then, you will often see the incestuous relationships among legislators, state government executives, lobbyists, political commentators, board members of powerful in-state corporations. You will ask why, and the answer always seems to be “Well, we are such a small state.”
So, Sue, I second your recommendation that Vermont needs a statewide ethics ethic, embodied in law. Yes, we are a small state, but in too many ways, too few people are a little too cozy.
Are you aware of any other states that currently have ethics policies that effectively addresses conflicts of interests by establishing meaningful penalties for violations? Is there language that already exists? Any links?
As a member of a couple of volunteer city boards in Vergennes, I’m very curious about this discussion. During the course of my tenure over the past decade we’ve written our “rules of procedure” a number of times and I’ve always been a bit leery of the state statute that we’ve use and cite. As you’ve expressed, the right of a board member to determine, without consequence, whether or not they have a conflict of interest in a quasi-judicial setting seems very arbitrary and ripe for potential abuse. However, I’m also worried about what impact adding a penalty for failure would have on our ability to convince others to join these boards. It’s already pretty difficult to get people to fill the vacancies we have, as they arise.
Anyway, thanks again and well done on getting (keeping?) the conversation going.
I heartily agree that politics needs strong ethical policies with penalties, and not just in Vermont.
But I find it is hard to expect our Blue Dog Governor to muzzle big business with an ethical leash…. not that he shouldn’t be thinking a few more moves down the chessboard to what is really best for VT and not just more money for reelection.
But he looks convinced that the economics of big box retail is healthy for the VT economy…. which when one looks at the full impact such is just not true.
Only small to medium business and home grown and based larger ones truly help the state economy.
But your point is that unethical means of gaining advantage over the public process should be illegal. It used to be so and I hope it will be again in the not too near future.