The story that got buried in the Freeps election coverage this AM is, as usual, GMD’s to highlight.
Democratic candidate for auditor, Doug Hoffer, who is known for exhaustive investigation of facts and figures, has discovered that, for all his protestations about “transparency,” Republican Vince Illuzzi’s track record in the Legislature is somewhat less than stellar.
Hoffer noted that “for the last six years of Senator Illuzzi’s tenure as chairman of the Institutions Committee (1999 – 2004), there are only 12 recordings of committee hearings. In contrast, the Finance Committee produced 346 such recordings during the same period. Shockingly, only one CD was produced by Mr. Illuzzi’s committee for an entire biennium (2001 – 2002).”
As Mr. Hoffer points out, decisions made by the Institutions Committee represent “tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds,” and one would think that a full record of deliberations would go with the territory.
Illuzzi counters that the discussions are too arcane for the layman to understand, so recording them in detail serves no public purpose!
The Free Press seems to think this is the end of the discussion, but I hardly agree! There will always be people like Doug Hoffer with the financial sophistication and civic investment necessary to sift through those recordings on behalf of the rest of us. We, the taxpayers, deserve the protection that affords us from political deal-making that may not always be in our best interests.
Which brings me back, once again, to my primary objection to Vince Illuzzi as auditor. I am not talking about his somewhat quixotic tendency to eye higher office, which causes him to lack commitment to the job at hand; nor am I speaking of his intention to be what amounts to a “part time auditor.” It is his very experience in the legislature that disqualifies him, in my book.
No elected office in state government should be more free of political baggage than that of the auditor. The auditor’s job, unlike that of legislators, is not to compromise. Deals traded on political capitol and the network of byzantine allegiances may work to free gridlock in the legislature, but they have no place in the auditor’s bag of tricks.
The best person for the job of auditor is the one who has both the skills to do the job and as few political strings attached as possible. That person, hands down, is Doug Hoffer who approaches the job with a long history of effective, independent policy analysis, but without the encumbrances of political courtship carried by Vince Illuzzi.
And the best expression of these values comes in Doug Hoffer’ own words:
“I intend to post the entire office budget online including information about contracts with outside contractors, as well as the contracts themselves. I plan to tell Vermonters the cost of every audit in order to weigh the costs and benefits. And I will post a list of current and planned audits and reviews, as well as their anticipated completion dates
All of state government should be transparent, but the Auditor’s office has a special responsibility because of its charge. Vermonters deserve an Auditor who is committed to openness and I promise to do all I can to make that happen.”
Since GMD’s founder left to seek elected office, the commentary posted by JV has gradually departed from insightful analytical content and drifted toward snarky, snide, self-absorbed, judgmental opinions. Most readers prefer analysis over conclusions. If the analytical content is sound, readers can draw their own conclusions both as to the subject matter and the author’s ability.
When I was in the Senate in the mid 1980s, I think most committees didn’t tape their hearings. And I certainly don’t think then or now that taping was what made the process transparent. By the measure of who taped the most, Nixon might be the most transparent president. Montpelier committee doors were always open to the public, and all decisions were on the record. This seems like an issue in search of a problem. If you object to Vince Illuzzi’s politics, say so.
I’ve done some checking. It appears that taping used to be rare, which is what I recall. Now, apparently, there is a general understanding committee meetings are taped, though there is no requirement in statute or Senate rules. I also understand that Sen. Illuzzi’s Economic Development Committee’s meetings have all been taped – something one might have missed unless reading Mr. Hoffer’s criticism very closely. I believe Mr. Hoffer might have a similar criticism of the Chairs of the Senate Appropriations Committee during the same years he looked at the Institutions Committee, since those committee meetings were almost never taped. Or is that not worth criticizing because the Appropriations Chairs were Democrats?
Transparency problems?! What a bogus charge! Vince Illuzzi has been as transparent a politician as anyone in Montpelier. Has Mr. Hoffer checked out all the other committees to see what they were doing a decade ago? If he’s such a numbers guy, you would think he would have looked at more than one other committee. Or would it have embarrassed some of the Democrats in the Senate?