It appears that Tom Salmon is not content with his role as State Auditor and would like to reach further into other branches of government, as was recently demonstrated with his odd foray into agricultural policy.
This time, as reported by Seven Days, it’s the judiciary he’d like to influence. Perhaps still chafing at the release of his drunk driving arrest video, Salmon took the unusual step of e-mailing Judge Geoffrey Crawford about a case that was currently under his consideration. The issue in question was who should bear the cost of access to public records. Judge Crawford, you may recall, is the jurist whose ruling made Mr. Salmon’s arrest video available for public viewing.
In his e-mail, Mr. Salmon apparently took the position that, in the case concerning a fee in excess of $1,300. that was levied against the Vermont State Employees Association for the privilege of inspecting public records, the Judge should rule against the workers:
“I hope as you consider the issue with public records requests, ample consideration can be given to those in state offices which undergo political and insincere requests for information,” wrote Salmon in his Dec. 29 email. “Such requests need to have boundaries.”
Un-bloody-believable. So much for the transparency and accountability that Salmon insists he brings to his office. These comments demonstrate remarkable tone-deafness and a total disrespect for the state workers at the center of the case. It seems that it’s all about him.
Salmon noted several records requests of his office, one from a Middlebury attorney Mitch Pearl, another from Seven Days and a third from his Democratic challenger in the 2010 election, Doug Hoffer. In all, his office produced more than 1500 pages of records in response to these various requests
Doug Hoffer offers this explanation of his requests:
In my case, I requested information about a number of items dealing with his official activities including 1) his office calendar to determine, among other things, if he had met with officials from Vermont Yankee before writing to legislators criticizing their efforts to make Entergy fill the decommissioning fund (he did, but he didn’t inform legislators); 2) travel expenditures for Mr. Salmon’s staff (very questionable); and 3) Mr. Salmon’s half-baked effort to “solve” the dairy crisis (a waste of taxpayer resources).
Seven Days correctly refers to Salmon’s attempt to influence Judge Crawford’s decision as being “ex parte” in nature. As such it was, at the very least, inappropriate, bordering on unethical behavior for an elected official.
Once again, the loosey-goosey nature of legal definitions regarding conflicts of interest and related issues in Vermont make it almost impossible to hold Salmon accountable for his presumptions. Judge Crawford, in any case, was not swayed by his arguments and ruled in favor of the State Employees Association.
Still, you’ve got to wonder in what direction Mr. Salmon’s attention will wander next. Who knows? Maybe the chair in the Auditor’s office is simply too small for him and he gets the fidgets.
Never has one person been so under-qualified, and has so mis-understood the elected office which they’ve held. I will commit myself to Christmas Eve Mass every year for the rest of my life if he vacates his office to challenge Bernie (as he has hinted he wants to) next go ’round.
Not that I count anything Tom has said/suggested as trustworthy.
And it’s even that much more depressing, given that his challenger (Doug Hoffer) may have been the most perfectly qualified, entirely in-the-know candidate to ever run for any office, ever. To anyone reading this: if you meet me, and if you say, “I voted for Tom Salmon over Doug Hoffer” I promise to slap you in the face.
It would be incredibly simple and not at all burdensome to comply with public records requests if all public records were stored electronically and offered for free via e-mail.
In fact, I would argue that all e-mail correspondence done using official state e-mail addresses should simply be a matter of public record unless there is a specific reason to make it otherwise. I.e, make transparency the default and secrecy (perhaps as when discussing personnel matters) the exception to the rule, creating a scenario in which the state doesn’t have to sift through thousands of e-mails to get someone what they need but instead can just allow us to browse through them on our own.
and he’ll try if he wants to. He can’t help himself the bigger office beckons.
Poor salmon haiku:
high branch beckon
ambition in Salmon soars
alas talent begs
13 VSA § 3015. Obstruction of justice
Whoever corruptly , or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, intimidates or impedes any witness, grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court or agency, in a contested case, of the state of Vermont, or causes bodily injury to such person or intentionally damages the property of such person on account of such person’s attendance at, deliberation at, or performance of his or her official duties in connection with a matter already heard, presently being heard or to be heard before any court or agency, in a contested case, of the state of Vermont, or corruptly or by threats or force or by any threatening letter or communication, obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to obstruct or impede the due administration of justice, shall be imprisoned not more than five years or fined not more than $5,000.00, or both. For the purposes of this section, “agency” and “contested case” shall have the meanings set forth in subsection 801(b) of Title 3. (Added 1977, No.
a ‘matter already heard, presently heard or to be heard’, or ‘endeavors to obstruct or impede’. The question could then be, is attempting to influence, any of the above.
Since he is an elected official who has also been found to have used this method re record requests made of him to refuse those he considers to have made ‘political and insincere requests’, not his judgement to make anyways, & displayed the behavior being ruled on.
Since he is part of the case, I should think he would make his voice heard on the record as part of the proceedings, not through the back door.