The uproar over Governor Shumlin’s land deal with Jeremy Dodge isn’t going away anytime soon, nor should it. A lot of questions* remain to be answered**, but I’m going to focus on a public policy issue that should get fresh consideration: Financial disclosure for candidates and elected officials.
*Example: if legal ethics mean anything, then there ought to be an inquiry into attorney Gloria Rice’s role in the deal. She represented BOTH sides in a transaction that was obviously weighted in Shumlin’s favor. Dodge was unaware of his rights in a tax-sale situation, and of the potential tax relief available to people like him. If she didn’t know all that, she’s a lousy real estate lawyer. If she did know all that and didn’t say anything, then she’s guilty of an ethical breach.
**Example II: Shumlin and Dodge signed the purchase agreement on September 25, three days before the property was scheduled for tax auction. But the deal wasn’t formally closed until November 7 — the day after Election Day. Hmmmmmmm. Maybe there were good reasons for the six-week delay, but the timing is remarkable. It could be interpreted as an awareness on Shumlin’s part that the sale might cause a stink if the details came out before the election. (And remember, Shumlin reportedly told Dodge not to talk to reporters.)
If this deal shows one thing clearly, it’s that financial transparency is a necessity. We need to know where and how our elected officials (and those who seek to become public officials) make their money, and how much they pay in taxes. Personal finances reflect an individual’s values, character, and priorities, as well as potential conflicts of interest. VTDigger, last October:
The governor said he’d never seen corruption in the Statehouse from either party over the course of his political career. … “The system works in Vermont,” he said. “In gubernatorial races, we voluntarily release them … What problem are we trying to solve?”
I take cold comfort in the nothing-to-see-here assurances of a man who thinks that fleecing an uneducated, mentally troubled individual is fair game. How, exactly, does he define “corruption”?
Shumlin offered another rationale for shielding state lawmakers from disclosure rules:
Shumlin said requiring legislators to disclose information like personal income and real estate would be asking too much. “These are folks that give up part of their lives five months of year to come to Montpelier,” Shumlin told VTDigger.
He’s got that completely ass-backwards. From the vantage point of a humble voter, these are folks who seek positions of influence, and who wish to serve the public and protect the public trust. If disclosing one’s finances is too much to ask, then perhaps Our Elected Servants should seek another line of work.
The politicians like to get all folksy on this subject — hey, this is little old Vermont, everybody knows everybody, we’re all good people, there aren’t any secrets, and a person’s business is his/her own affair — but they are evading the real issue. Vermont is one of only three states that don’t require statewide candidates to disclose their finances, and one of only TWO that don’t require legislative candidates to do so. Isn’t that just a little bit disgraceful?
Apparently it stimulates no shame under the Golden Dome, since (as VTDigger reports) it’s been 19 years since a personal finance disclosure bill made it as far as the House or Senate floor. I don’t hold out much hope that the same lawmakers who balked at some simple, reasonable campaign finance rules would voluntarily subject themselves to personal disclosure requirements because, if the campaign finance debate showed anything, it showed that the public interest is the last thing on many lawmakers’ minds when it comes to how they do their business.
But the Jeremy Dodge land deal is an obvious sign that it’s time to try again. Hold their feet to the fire, even if they jump up and run away as soon as they can.