After a rocky few months, things are looking much better for the reelection prospects of Montpelier mayor Mary Hooper.
If you've been paying attention, you know what's been going on. Back in October it was revealed that Scott Construction, a city contractor, had defrauded the city of about $400,000. Specifically, when a series of administrative errors created an overpayment to Scott, not only did Scott fail to report or refund the money, as any honest person would do, Scott continued to bill the city for additional work on the same contract, without mentioning the $400,000 overpayment.
At the time it came to light people, even here, were saying that Hooper must go. There was even a blog by that name. Not everybody cared about the argument from Hooper and Bill Fraser, the city manager, that their decision not to publicly disclose the overpayment problem was the soundest strategy to keep Scott in business, at least until the city got the money back from him. Which, of course, wasn't going to happen, especially when the company went belly up.
People were pretty hot, and there was a lot of criticism of the Council, but especially of the Mayor and City Manager. It got so bad that people were writing Mary Hooper's political obituary, saying that there was no possible way she could hold onto either her mayoralty or her House seat.
Recent events indicate that reports of her political demise may have been exaggerated.
First, the City got the money back. All of it. Anyone would assume that a city would carry insurance for this kind of thing, and Montpelier does, and the insurance carrier finally came through with the money.
Next, potential candidacies seem to be pretty scarce. Sure, there's Gary Schy, a local landlord who considers himself a bit of a gadfly, but even he admits that he's not a viable candidate:
He said he is willing to step aside if a viable candidate comes forward to challenge Hooper.
Like possibly former Council member and Representative Jon Anderson, even though Mary has soundly thrashed Jon on the two occasions they have run against each other, once for mayor and once in the Democratic primary for House. Last week, however, Anderson took his hat out of the ring, or said that he wasn't throwing it in the ring.
According to the Times Argus Anderson said Monday that he has been urged to take on the race, but felt the time wasn't right to make such a demanding commitment. Could he have beaten Mary Hooper in a head to head race? It seems unlikely, but now we won't get to find out.
There are still a few days to file nominating petitions, and it doesn't take a lot to get them in, but nobody is surfacing as a “viable” candidate to this point.
A couple of other things.
First, a distinguished citizens' panel studying the Scott Construction affair essentially cleared the Mayor, Council, and Manager of any wrongdoing in the handling of the problem.
“The Committee believes that well-intentioned people made mistakes and difficult choices, but they did so believing their actions were in best interest of the taxpayers,” the report read.
“I think that really sums it up. There's no question they made some mistakes and some errors of judgment. But the documents and the discussions with them made it clear the things they did they thought were in the best interest of the community,” said resident Nick Marro, the chief author of the report. “Hindsight is always 20-20.”
Second, Montpelier's city leadership got a huge boost last week when the results of a competitive grant were announced. Out of a total award of $20 million nationwide, Montpelier's proposal for a downtown district biomass heating system was awarded $8 million. That's right, 40% of the total for the country and way more than any other recipient. The project has been in the works for fourteen years, and the award is a tribute to the hard work and vision of the City Council, the Mayor, and Community Development Director Gwen Hallsmith.How do you turn out the leadership after a big accomplishment like this?
Finally, one smaller thing. Remember that blog, Resign Now Hooper? The blog dedicated to the proposition that Mary Hoope must resign now?
Well, it's gone. Nothing there. Whoever set it up apparently got tired of it pretty quickly
So where's the anti-Hooper sentiment in the city now? From all that appears so far, it's nothing more thana few hotheads on the comments section of the Times Argus.
And if that's the case, I like Mary Hooper's chances for reelection.
Funny thing about that “distinguished citizens’ panel” that looked into the Scott Construction thing: I was talking with one of said “distinguished citizens” the other day and asked “well what about the person who wrote the check, who pays the city bills?”. The answer I got was “what about ’em?”.
And for everything I’ve read about this story (Times-Argus, etc) not once do I recall seeing anything ever about the person who actually wrote the check.
Listen, I don’t have anything personal against whoever that person is (don’t even know who they are), and I’m sure they’re a well-meaning, decent human being; but with all that has been said about “accountability” in this controversy, how has a “citizens’ panel”, the press, and everyone else not looked into the person who wrote the check?
I mean, do we know this person didn’t work with/for Scott Construction, do we know City checks aren’t being written for the wrong amount all the time, or that other details aren’t being overlooked? Again, not trying to be an ass, just thinking “accountability” rests with the person who actually made the mistake.
To suggest that all the fault for this overpayment rests with the construction company is nonsense. The council, the manager and the accounts payable clerk all should have collaboratively put into place a process for reviewing all bills before they are paid. Failure to have done so, is the real issue. The fact they collected from the insurance company is irrelevant to the problem. In fact, that collection will probably drive up insurance rates for all Vermont municipalities.
Obviously, Scott is not clean in this deal, but the first “mistake” is a lack of internal controls within the city’s bill-paying system. Who is responsible for that mistake, not Scott?
It still is awe-inspiring how an overpayment of such magnitude can go undiscovered for so long. I do not fault the check writer, unless it was deliberate embezzlement, which it was not, but how it got through these slick auditors and all and was not found until two years later still dazzles the imagination. I do not and never did fault Hooper or Fraser. They were bound to the attorney, who, I think, gave them misguided advice.
At least it’s over now and we have the money and Scott construction is out of business.
Yes, the auditors missed the over payment. However, this only demonstrates that auditing is more vodoo accounting than the real thing. And, it does not answer the question who was responsible for putting into place the systems that would prevent such overpayments? Those are the ones responsible, period.
Sorry Rama, the illegal activity would never have happened if the proper controls had been in place. The way to prevent a repeat illegal activity is to simply have careful oversight of how bills are paid. Jailing Scott, or whatever, will not prevent a repeat. However, fixing the system will!