I’ve had several conversations already with people about the news regarding Ed Flanagan. Among those in the circles I run, there is compassion, concern and sadness. However, I know full well that, among other circles, the reaction will be quite the opposite. This is why the sourcing on the story better be rock solid, as there is likely to be an avalanche of anti-gay sentiment from the right at this news.
Flanagan, of course, has had an extraordinary political career. As State Auditor, he was the first openly gay statewide officeholder in the nation. Love him or hate him, he has been a fierce advocate for progressive priorities, and he transformed the Auditor’s office during his tenure into a state watchdog operation. And his continuing work in the State Senate, despite his accident and subsequent Traumatic Brain Injury has been downright inspirational.
These untoward allegations, of course, come in the wake of charges delivered via Seven Days’ Ken Picard of Flanagan’s mental fitness for holding office. Setting aside, for a moment, the fact that (like it or not) its up to voters to make that call, I never bought it. Flanagan’s TBI clearly presents several challenges for him, and observing as well as interacting with him, its easy to infer that one of them is a challenge of focus. But the fact is, when he engages that focus, it seems to me he is “all there.” If he’s representing his constituents with honesty, integrity and intelligence – why should this disability matter?
And in fact, it is that disability that I believe many of his critics can not, or will not, see past. I fear that people who should be allies have written him off simply because of the way his disability forces him to walk down the street. That’s a shame because who the hell cares how his physical disability manifests itself. Unless he is genuinely engaged in some type of misconduct or conduct that demonstrates that he can no longer perform legislative service, the only relevant question (a question for Chittenden voters) begins and ends with whether he is representing them to their majority satisfaction. So far, the answer has been an unqualified “yes.”
In any event, there is nothing here that justifies the prior reporting on Ed Flanagan that called his public service into question. Those articles earlier this year were based on the travails of his disabilities and bereft of examples demonstrating Mr. Flanagan was failing to do the job Chittenden County voters elected to do. Instead we read dismissive comments about his physical abilities.
With that background, it is disappointing to read Totten’s comment “In light of these recent revelations, I wonder if Flanagan’s supporters will reconsider their blind faith in his ability to handle the rigors of public office without some additional supervision and support.” Keep in mind, before today, neither Seven Days nor any other credible source gave an example of conduct or political judgment that called Mr. Flanagan’s ability to perform public service into question. Indeed, even if the allegations published today turn out to be true, or turn out to contain elements of truth, that will in no way justify the prior suggestions that Mr. Flanagan’s disabilities, without more, negated his ability to represent Chittenden County.
Also, in fairness to readers who are just tuning into this story, Seven Days’ lead source – Tiki Archambeau – was quoted saying “I don’t have any political reason for coming forward. . . I’m not out to bring the guy down”. That may be true. It also might not be the whole story. Mr. Archambeau after all, when last we heard from him, was posting here on GMD claiming, among other things, that “[if you] were principled in the first place, you wouldn’t be a Dem.” Mr. Archambeau may not be out to bring down one particular Democrat, but he has no trouble implying to others that Democrats do not have principles.
Mr. Flanagan has denied the reports. Like many others, I am obliged to give him the benefit of the doubt, particularly given his tremendous record of service to the state. Despite my concerns, I remain hopeful that they aren’t true, and even more hopeful that – if they are true – he is able to get the support he needs to work through what will be a difficult time.
Other people on this forum may remember that while I may be in sync with much of Mr. Flanagan’s politics, I was strongly against his candidacy for Lt. Gov. This was because of things he did in the past as auditor and more importantly, the way he did them. In my opinion he sometimes acted against people in advance of knowing all the facts.
We have a terrible tendency in this country to pre-judge prior to knowing the facts. President Obama, after saying that he doesn’t know all the facts, called the actions of the police “stupid”. That was stupid.
Let’s not be stupid here. This is day one of this issue. Many facts will come forward to either substantiate the allegations of immoral and possibly illegal actions or to exonerate Mr. Flanagan.
Let’s not pre-judge.
PJ
I was discussing this issue with a close associate who has worked in a health care setting for years. This person observed that many patients suffering from brain trauma exhibit an almost reflexive tendency to reach for their genitals, be they farmer, factory worker or … nun. Maybe folks in the media and blogosphere should consult medical professionals knowledgeable with these injuries and confirm what my associate has observed. Mr. Flanagan’s alleged actions may be symptoms of on-going trauma, which is unrelated to a person’s political views but may indeed affect one’s suitability for public office. That said, I look at many state and national politicians who have not suffered severe injuries to the brain as has Ed Flanagan, and I wonder what the reasons are for their bizarre, irrational and destructive behaviour.
odum — I have to say that, in your understandable attempt to be fair to Ed Flanagan, you’re being unfair to other people and possibly to the truth.
Let’s take Mr. Archambeau. You don’t actually accuse him of making stuff up for political reasons, but that’s the clear implication. Even if he’s not a diehard Flanagan supporter, do you really think he’d put himself in such an uncomfortable spotlight making false accusations just to cause trouble? That is a huge step to take. And too often, the accuser gets the worst of it in these public exchanges.
Elsewhere in your post, you imply that those who condemn Flanagan will act out of anti-gay or anti-disability bias. In fact, there are perfectly valid reasons to doubt his fitness for public office.
Finally, you draw a line where I would not. You posit the issue in terms of “conduct that demonstrates that he can no longer perform legislative service.” In fact, there are many kinds of misconduct not directly relatable to official performance that, in my judgment, would make a person unfit for high office. If Totten’s report is true, Flanagan is unfit.
PJ is right, it’s too soon to judge for sure. But in our effort to be fair, let’s not go too far and try to sweep this under the rug.
I’m going to add one note here, something Flanagan added to his denial that I find unsettling. Flanagan, according to the Burlington Free Press: “If I offended anyone, I’m very sorry.” Flanagan, according to a Totten blog post: “I’m very sorry if I offended anybody in whatever I did when I was unclothed.”
First of all, I hate when anyone resorts to the apology “if I offended anyone.” Apologize if you’ve done something wrong; stand your ground if you haven’t. Don’t weasel it. Second, in the Totten quote, he seems to be saying that he doesn’t know or can’t remember what he did. If true, it reveals a disturbing lack of self-awareness and self-control.
Ed Flanagan has served Vermont well but he clearly needs help. It’s time for the people who know and love him to begin the gentle and firm process of intervention and healing. Allegations being allegations, the question beyond factual events at the YMCA is, “What has created a spiral of self-destructive behavior in Ed Flanagan?” This is a question his close friends and loved ones should really be asking as his complicated health issues continue to dramatically affect his public life.
Darren Allen took a lot of heat when he reported on US Senator Jim Jefford’s memory loss, yet the subject was relevant because it clearly affected Jim’s public capacity. These public/private are difficult conversations and it’s a relief to see that reactions to this story haven’t plunged into a pit of bile. Frank, honest opinions are difficult to put forward at times like this. But honesty and frank discussion is also necessary.
My first impression of Ed Flanagan wasn’t good and in fact it continues to make me view the YMCA story as part of a longer, more significant trend than is currently being discussed.
At the February 2005 Curtis Awards the late Jean Ankeney introduced me to Ed Flanagan. He was really drunk. If you happen to have lived with alcoholism you know it when you see it. It seems obvious to me that Ed Flanagan, like many good Vermonters, suffers from alcoholism. This is the first observational symptom I think of in the Ed Flanagan story since 2005 when I met him.
Nine months later, on the Thursday before Thanksgiving, Flanagan’s famous automobile accident occurs. As we know, his car crashed off I-89 in the wee Thursday night/early Friday am hours. So, was he drunk? That’s the first question that comes to my mind. The recent article by Ken Picard, Continuing Ed, helps us recall that there was terrible weather and poor driving conditions that night. But we may not remember that the state police investigation had determined the accident occurred hours before snow squalls made driving treacherous. So, was he drunk? If Flanagan was given a blood alcohol test the result would have most probably been within the legal range since 14 hours passed before he was rescued. No one can say that Flanagan’s terrible accident was or was not related to alcohol. It’s an open question. It’s a legitimate question. It’s a red flag for future events.
Flanagan returned to legislature in May 2006. That’s great news and it inspires everyone around him. But then…
In December 2006, Flanagan’s second automobile accident occurs. What happened? Maybe it really doesn’t matter by now. It might have been speed, a TBI blackout, alcohol or who knows what else. The primary fact that rises to the surface is that Ed Flanagan, only 13 months after an incredibly close scrape with death is in an accident once more. This time the concern isn’t about the magnitude of the accident; it’s about Ed Flanagan putting himself in a position of peril a second time. Those who have been rescued from death should know better than to test the gods twice. They should know better than to put their friends and family through hell a second time. Most people who suffer an accident change behavior and lower the risk in their life. But some don’t. Of those who don’t, a spiral of self-destruction can often be observed. Ed Flanagan’s second accident is an example of a man not thinking through life-threatening risks. It’s an example of self-destructive behavior that left unchecked may very well form a continuing pattern manifest in various ways. Between the second auto accident and the alleged behavior at the YMCA a psychological line can be traced suggesting deep emotional issues that have yet to be resolved.
Sometimes it really is helpful for family and friends to make a judgement call about their loved one’s behavior. Parents do this with children every day, never for a moment diminishing the child’s identity and value as human being. Ed Flanagan clearly needs his friends, family and loved ones to help him assess his behavior and what steps he needs to take in order to change. Failing that would be the real tragedy of the Flanagan story.
Most commentary, I imagine, will be centered around this week’s news and Flanagan’s first, TBI-causing automobile accident. My view is formed additionally by my first impression of him and also through the context of the second accident. On that day in December 2006, it seems pretty clear that Ed Flanagan was beginning to privately spin-out on an exit ramp to personal self-destruction.
Ed Flanagan is esteemed for the hard work he has given to the State of Vermont and he will continue to be praised for his precedence and achievements. Like any human being, he deserves the strongest remedy for whatever ails him. Let’s hope he gets the help he needs.
Respectfully submitted,
Nate Freeman
. Now we learn that, according to Shay Totten, several people associated with the Burlington YMCA have been offended by Flanagan’s more than unusual behavior in the locker room.
No, no and no.
The thing that strikes me about all of this… if a complaint was made by Y members, why go to the media with the story? Who gains in this? Isn’t Archambeau a Prog Party operative? Isn’t Seven Days a Prog paper? I see now that the Y director has written a damage control email to the membership. Did the Y management ever approach Mr Flanagan before it hit the papers?
All of this sounds fishy to me.
From the GOP “Big Tent” weekly newsletter, July 30 edition, Rob Roper has this to say: