City of Montpelier to Recover Lost Funds in Full

The $400,000 overpayment to Scott Construction by the city of Montpelier and the subsequent decision by City officials to keep the goof quiet has been a source of much political sturm und drang in the capital city, and has already led to at least one announced challenger to incumbent Mayor Mary Hooper. While the concerns generated by the lack of conspiracy transparency will likely remain in play, the original issue (the money thing) looks to be solved. From the city:

The City of Montpelier will be paid in full for the loss it incurred from an overpayment to the Scott Construction Co, Inc of Newport. This morning officials from the Vermont League of Cities and Towns Property & Casualty Insurance Fund (VLCT-PACIF) informed the City Manager and Finance Director that the City’s insurance claim in the Scott Construction matter would be honored and that the City would be covered in full. While full details of this decision have not been received from the insurer, the amount of reimbursement is expected to be the $397,079 awarded to the city in a court judgment against Scott Construction, Inc. on June 16, 2009. This claim was originally denied in January of 2007.

The moral to the story is – once again – transparency, transparency, transparency. With the original issue now handled, the only issue that remains is the trust gap brought on by the city officials themselves.

Still, unlike their counterparts in Burlington facing their own financial scandal, Montpelier’s mayor and city council have proactively contained much of the public resentment through accepting responsibility with appropriate humility, as well as opening up the process to full public scrutiny. What difference that makes at the ballot box remains to be seen.

4 thoughts on “City of Montpelier to Recover Lost Funds in Full

  1. While the concerns generated by the lack of conspiracy will likely remain in play, the original issue (the money thing) looks to be solved. From the city:

    . . . lack of transparency, maybe?

  2. Am I correct in my understanding that the City had simply given up trying to recover from its insurance carrier (after the claim was initially denied) until AFTER the press blew the whistle and made the story public — so that then the City’s lawyers tried just again just a little harder?  If so, this says something to me about the mayor, manager and council keeping the story under wraps from the public for 3 years.  Will some reporter please ask this question?  And then report on it?

Comments are closed.