For Immediate Release

Contact: Kelly Mangan

Phone: 802-324-6560

Email: kellyVFFC@gmail.com

Event: Press Conference

Location: Vermont Workers Center (294 N. Winooski Ave, Burlington, VT)

Date: June 13, 2013

Time: 12pm

VERMONT FAIR FOOD CAMPAIGN PUBLISHES STUDY OF FOOD CHAIN WORKERS, THEIR WORKING CONDITIONS IN VERMONT FOOD INDUSTRY

The Vermont Fair Food Campaign is publishing a study on the conditions of food workers in Vermont, and will hold a press conference on June 13 at 12pm to announce our findings.

The food industry in Vermont accounts for 15% of our state economy, employs more than 57,000 people, and generates about $202 million in state and local revenue. It’s a growing industry, but those who do the work of producing, manufacturing, processing, distributing, and selling our food do not see the benefits of this growth.

The Vermont Fair Food Campaign spent a year surveying food workers. We found that many of them receive low pay, few benefits, no paid sick leave, and have little job security. If their employers offer health insurance, they often can’t afford it. Many struggle with inconsistent hours and schedules, which makes it difficult for workers to predict if they’ll be able to pay their bills from week to week. About 16% of workers expressed concerns about health and safety issues at work, and 23% had been injured on the job. And finally, our survey found a lot of fear among food workers who wanted to speak up about workplace conditions, but were scared of losing their jobs if they did.

This needs to change. It’s impossible to build a healthy and stable food movement on top of substandard wages and poor working conditions. If we are really serious about creating a sustainable food system in Vermont, then we must start by creating sustainable jobs.  

The Vermont Fair Food Campaign is a movement of food workers and community allies fighting for livable wages, paid sick leave, dignity, respect, and voice for food chain workers across our state.

###

The public face of the existentially challenged Vermont Health CO-OP is CEO Christine Oliver, a former top official in the Shumlin and Douglas Administrations. But the motive force behind the company is Board Chair Mitch Fleischer. It was he, Oliver says, who had the idea to form a CO-OP under the terms of the Affordable Care Act. She outlined his crucial role at a recent media briefing:

The CO-OP is not even an potion for Vermonters without Mitch Fleischer. When the application was before the [federal government], he was the linchpin; he could bring a lot of things the CO-OP would need to be successful.

She portrayed her business partner as sort of a cross between Martin Luther King and Thomas Edison: a public-spirited entrepreneur bringing his talents to bear for the betterment of the community.

But that’s not the only way to describe Fleischer’s motivations. There’s this, from Anne Galloway of VTDigger:

In the spring of 2011, Fleischer, who has worked as an insurance broker for 30 years, was critical of the Shumlin administration’s plans to limit all insurance products for small businesses to insurers on the state exchange. The federal law also cut brokers, who made about $17 million a year on commissions, out of the system.

That fall, Fleischer made plans to create the CO-OP as a way to salvage business for his company.

And that, boys and girls, is a whole nother hovercraft full of eels. It’s a picture — not of an entrepreneur doing public service in the private sector — but of a desperate businessman latching onto a new opportunity in the ACA’s generous startup funding for state health CO-OPs.

Next step: the nascent VHC, with Fleischer as board chair, signs a no-bid contract with Fleischer’s brokerage firm to provide education, outreach, and large group sales. A contract that could net as much as a million bucks a year.

Nice work if you can get it.  

Fleischer’s potential conflict of interest was noted by Susan Donegan, Commissioner of Financial Regulation, in her rejection of VHC’s bid for a certificate of public good. Fleischer and Oliver insist that there is no conflict, because VHC has high ethical standards and the contract was thoroughly vetted by the feds.

I don’t know if there was an actual conflict of interest or not, but it damn sure smells funny. Especially when you read this comment by Fleischer at that media briefing:

[State regulators] never asked me about the Fleischer-Jacobs contract, they never asked me about my board pay, they never asked me about conflict of interest. …I would have walked away from the board. If that was an impediment to our getting the license, I would have walked away.

Fleischer would have walked away — from the board. Not from the lucrative contract.

I think that reveals Mitch Fleischer’s true priorities. If push came to shove, he’d be more concerned with the Fleischer-Jacobs contract than with continuing to serve as “the linchpin” of the Vermont Health CO-OP.

That makes me question his motivations in starting the CO-OP and tapping into $33 million in federal loans. And I’m not the only one. Falko Schilling of VPIRG, in this week’s Seven Days:

“When we plan to transition to single-payer health care in 2017, it almost feels like the introduction of this new cooperative is betting against that,” he says. “While it has promise, I don’t think they are really on board with the larger goal that a lot of people in the state are trying to move forward.”

Which makes a lot of sense, in view of Fleischer’s professional interests. The CO-OP would, at the very least, give his brokerage a big infusion of business. At most, it might make the health care exchange more palatable to Vermonters and slow the momentum toward implementation of single-payer.

In the same article, single-payer advocate Dr. Deb Richter questioned “whether [the CO-OP] was really needed, or is it just sort of going after a pot of money the feds were throwing our way?”

There’s no way to know for sure. And there are a lot of good people working at the Vermont Health CO-OP. But the whiff of mixed motives, the hint of conflict of interest, that hovers around its “linchpin,” is one reason why I’m ambivalent about the CO-OP’s future. And why, if push comes to shove, I give somewhat more credence to Donegan’s view of the company than to Fleischer’s.  

Ah. So. After a couple weeks of wretched publicity, Governor Shumlin has executed a political maneuver not normally present in his bag of tricks: the quick turnabout. After repeatedly insisting that his purchase of the Dodge homestead was a done deal, his attorney is now saying that Shumlin is open to voiding the transaction.

In fact, M. Jerome Diamond insists that Shumlin felt that way all along – he was just saying the exact opposite. And Mr. Diamond had a ready explanation, (Freeploid paywall alert) if not a believable one, for this odd behavior:

Diamond, whom Shumlin had hired in recent weeks after the land deal became a hot-button issue, said nullifying the deal had always been an option Shumlin was willing to consider, but he hadn’t wanted to say so publicly because he didn’t want to negotiate in the media.

Bwahahahaha. Sorry, M. Jerome, not buyin’ it. If Shumlin didn’t want to negotiate in the media, he should have said so, rather than blatantly misrepresenting his stance. No, the more likely scenario is that attorney sat down with client and told him that the facts in the case might not be in his favor, and even if they were, a courtroom victory over Jeremy Dodge could poison Shumlin’s image. In short, a trial would be a lose-lose situation for the Governor.

So the best option was a graceful exit. With Shumlin, of course, insisting that he be fully reimbursed in any settlement. After all, charity stops at the wallet’s opening. (Must be one of those childhood lessons learned by Little Petey the Price-Gouger.)

So, assuming that the Governor’s cupidity doesn’t prevent him from ending this sorry episode, what’s the big takeaway?

After the jump: the big… er… takeaways.

Well, there’s the fresh dents in his image. The Dodge transaction confirms a widely held perception that the Governor is a millionaire with a chronic empathy shortage who’s tone-deaf to the troubles of less fortunate Vermonters.

But equally important, if not more so, for his political future: this is just the latest episode in a very bad 2013 for Shumlin. (“Very bad” in relative terms, of course; he remains a very powerful chief executive with huge legislative majorities and a feeble opposition.) This year, he’s suffered one setback after another that strike at the very core of his appeal as a politician: that he’s a savvy operator and a can-do executive.

Start with his budget address in January, when he laid out some bold new initiatives that came as a complete surprise to Legislative Democrats. Presumably he thought that the Dems would follow where he led – or that he could persuade them through his raw political charisma. But the Dems were blindsided, and they didn’t appreciate it.

And then, during the 2013 session,  Shumlin utterly failed to make a persuasive case for his plans. He kept on repeating the same old discredited talking points, long after it was clear that nobody was buying what he was selling. And he stonewalled Legislative efforts to meet him halfway.

And in the end, while there was significant movement on some issues, the 2013 session was a messy squander of an historic opportunity. If the Governor and Democratic lawmakers had been on the same page, they could have accomplished far more. And in my mind, Shumlin gets most of the blame because of his stubborn refusal to budge.

The Dodge deal is just the cherry on this shit sundae. And one more sign that Peter Shumlin may not be the political or managerial genius he clearly thinks he is. Whether or not I’ve agreed with the Governor, I’ve always had respect for his smarts. But in recent months, we’ve seen plenty of  evidence that his strengths might not be all that strong*. Which is bad news for his own political future, and bad news for the Democrats’ hopes of extending their hegemony. Methinks it’s time for the Shumlin Machine to head to the garage for a tuneup. Or a rebuild.  

*You know, all this trouble started after the departure of Alex MacLean, Shumlin’s top aide and political right hand. Maybe, just maybe, she was the real genius of the clan.  

The disagreement between the Vermont Health CO-OP and the state Department of Financial Regulation is a classic Rashomon story: two diametrically opposed interpretations of the same situation. In denying VHC a Certificate of Public Good, DFR Commissioner Susan Donegan found flaws in VHC’s business plan and management structure, a possible conflict of interest at the very top of the company, and an unacceptably high risk of failure. VHC officials assert that Donegan is wrong on all counts, and that, after months and months of consistent communication between company and regulator, the rejection came as a total shock.

It’s hard to believe that the two parties are looking at the same sequence of events – events in which they participated (indeed, cooperated) from start to finish. And honestly, I don’t know enough to say who’s right and who’s wrong. But for me, the bottom line is this:

I don’t think it makes much difference either way.

The Vermont Health CO-OP sounds like a wonderful thing – a member-owned insurance carrier based right here in the Green Mountain State.  It appeals to many of our most dearly cherished self-images.  CO-OP CEO Christine Oliver and Board Chair Mitch Fleischer point out that many other states already have health CO-OPs, established through the Affordable Care Act. And, as a hotbed of co-operative enterprises, Vermont is the best possible place for a company like theirs. (Photo: Oliver and Fleischer at a press briefing last week.)

Except for one thing: In the Affordable Care Act, CO-OPs are part of the endgame. Health care reform is going no farther anytime soon. But in Vermont, we’re on the move to single-payer health care in 2017. If we get to single-payer, VHC likely dissolves. If single-payer craps out, VHC will be a very unsatisfying consolation prize. In fact, given the projected onset of single-payer, one could argue that VHC is an unnecessary risk of federal (read: taxpayer) funds. (The government has agreed to loan VHC a total of $33 million for startup costs and operating reserves. According to Oliver and Fleischer, if VHC goes bust before repaying the loans, the feds are on the hook.)

And while the prospect of a health insurance CO-OP* sounds warm and fuzzy and Vermonty, some of our leading health care reform advocates are decidedly lukewarm on the concept.

*It’s correctly spelled as CO-OP rather than “co-op” because it’s an acronym for “Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans.” These are a product of the Affordable Care Act, specifically defined within that law. This was one of many points of dispute between VHC and DFR: Donegan sees VHC as much more like a traditional mutual insurance company than what we think of as a cooperative. Oliver and Fleischer insist that VHC would behave like a cooperative, with policyholders having a voice in the company’s operation.  

Dr. Deb Richter, family physician and leader of the single-payer fight, told Seven Days:

This is just one more insurance scheme as far as I’m concerned. Not necessary, a lot of fuss, and a waste of time and money.

And Peter Sterling of the Vermont Campaign for Health Care Security told me:

For consumers, [Donegan’s rejection] is not a bad thing. There will be a lot of products on the market. With just MVP and Blue Cross offering products, it’s probably better for consumers.

From his personal experience as a health-care advocate, Sterling has seen plenty of folks who are overwhelmed by health insurance options. He believes that the exchange will ensure a decent array of insurance options while minimizing confusion.

Governor Shumlin doesn’t appear terribly anxious to get in the trenches, either. Last week, Oliver and Fleischer said that Shumlin would help them get a rehearing. And I speculated that Donegan might find herself bigfooted by the Guv. But Shumlin’s more recent statements are much more equivocal. The tanned and rested Peter Hirschfeld reports from behind the Mitchell Family Paywall:

Shumlin Tuesday said the decision on the CO-OP’s future is Donegan’s alone to make, and that he will not encourage her to reconsider the ruling.

“My job as governor is to meet with people when they’re happy or unhappy with state government, and that’s what I did,” Shumlin said. “But this is a regulatory matter, and I don’t get involved in regulatory decisions. And it would be totally inappropriate if I did.”

Sounds like Shumlin’s face-to-face with the VHC principals was a mere formality. And that quote sounds like a kiss-off.

Oliver and Fleischer certainly shouldn’t pin their hopes on a last-minute gubernatorial stay of execution. And Donegan still insists she won’t reopen the case. Which would leave VHC with two unpalatable options: a longshot appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court, or a complete reworking of their business plan and a restart of the DFR application process.

Either option would almost certainly prevent VHC from entering the health care exchange in its first year. And that’s the best opportunity for a brand-new carrier to grab market share. As Fleischer pointed out in last week’s briefing, the launch of the exchange effectively wipes the slate clean, which would give VHC a level playing field (pardon mixed metaphor) with its well-established competition. By 2015, MVP and Blue Cross will have a big headstart – and many consumers will be satisfied with their carriers and not looking to switch.

The situation led Seven Days to describe VHC as “on life support.”  And to me, that’s not a big deal. Because VHC is, at best, tangential to the ultimate goal of single-payer health care.  

From the Department of Things No One Disagrees With, perennial political question mark, Bruce Lisman, has once again emerged from his burrow to announce importantly that government in Vermont should strive for more transparency.

What made this nonplussing pronouncement that much more underwhelming was the fact that it appeared in the Free Press directly above the announcement of Secretary of State Jim Condos’ second “Transparency Tour” since his election in 2010.  Transparency has, in fact, been a central theme in his tenure as Sec. of State.

I had the opportunity to attend one of his public events on the first “Transparency Tour.”  St. Albans had been experiencing some controversies, and Sec. Condos came here to answer questions and teach a “refresher course” in basic rules of open meetings.  It was a great presentation and I learned much in that one evening.

Since he took office, Sec. Condos has been working tirelessly, and as quickly as budget constraints will allow, to update the interfaces for public access to things like campaign and election data.  I have found that he and his staff make themselves extremely available for questions and do a pretty impressive job of providing information despite the challenges inherent in trying to upgrade systems during a belt-tightening phase.

In his Free Press cameo appearance, Mr. Lisman states in the broadest terms what everyone agrees should be the goals for open government.

There are no specific new suggestions as to how this goal of greater transparency (which is undisputed) should be achieved, just restatement of the obvious and the suggestion that yet another layer of government be added, “a transparency authority,” which according to Mr. Lisman, should include representatives of the Ethan Allen Institute and the Public Assets Institute.

(I erroneously identified PAI as being right-leaning, and apologize for the mistake.)

These organizations already function in a watchdog role, independent of the process.   In my opinion, that’s a much better arrangement.

So long as Mr. Lisman has big bucks and coyly refuses to drop the last veil on his political bias, the media will no doubt give him ink and flatter his notions of self-importance, even when he really has nothing of substance to say.

All right.  Enough of this silence shit (as Sean Connery might have put it in The Untouchables).  Little Dems must be doing the vigil game as the Shumlin/Dodge story gets worse and worser.  

It occurs to me that since I started voting here in Vermont in ’76, I’ve voted for a shitload of Dems.  That makes me a Little Dem myself–or as Leftfield would have put it: “A Lib-er-al Fuck.”  So, I hereby declare that, as of the 2014 elections, not one single Dem will get my vote, unless, of course, there comes about some kind of just resolution to the Jeremy Dodge SCANDAL.  I voted for Diamond in 1980, and every two years I vote for Ann Cummings and a whole lot of other Dems usually, along with my Liberty Union, Prog, and Libertarian choices.  But, from now on, I’m boycotting the Vermont Democratic Party, and I will urge others to do the same, unless, as I said, miracle of miracles happens, and Shumlin owns up, gives Dodge back his place and INSTRUCTS BILL SORRELL TO WORK WITH THE VERMONT ACLU AND VERMONT LEGAL AID IN INVESTIGATING ANY AND ALL CASES OF FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION OF THE POOR, ELDERLY, AND DISABLED BY OTHER VERMONTERS OR FIRMS OR ORGANIZATIONS IN OR OUT-OF STATE.  

This will, of course, include real estate deals, but hopefully, down the line, all ABUSE of the poor, elderly, and disabled needs to be addressed.  Bill Sorrell has apparently been QUITE REMISS in his duty as Vt. AG in investigating cases of abuse of the elderly and disabled.  If Sorrell continues to refuse to do his job, he should resign, or be voted out of office in 2014.  Same with Shumlin if he continues his UNETHICAL behavior in the Jeremy Dodge CASE.  

This “the alternatives are so much worse” BULLSHIT from the Vermont Dems needs to STOP NOW!  If I have to, along with my vote for Bill Doyle every two years, I’ll vote for other goddamned Republicans, if no Prog, Liberty Union, or Libertarian candidates are running in those particular slots.  I am FED UP with the HYPOCRISY that says it is better for the Democratic Party to be THE NAZIS than the Republican Party!

I will ‘strongly urge’ and write about and talk about this message:  BOYCOTT THE VERMONT DEMOCRATIC PARTY UNTIL IT STRAIGHTENS ITSELF OUT!

As of now, consider me a LibertyUnion-Progressive-Libertarian.  

A sitting Vermont Governor, who is also a MILLIONAIRE, has committed, while in office, what seems to me, close to a criminal act of financial exploitation against a Vermont resident.  Shumlin has hired none other than M. Jerome Diamond to cover his ass for him.  Who will Jeremy Dodge get for an attorney?  The firm of Larry, Darryl, and Darryl?  This is an OUTRAGE.  Something you expect from someone like Dick Cheney or Donald Trump.  IT IS THE WAY HENRY KISSINGER TREATED THE WORLD!

So, GET REAL, Dems.  This one won’t fly.  People will remember this one next year– Governor Illuzzi, etc.

Remember Nixon digging a deeper hole for himself, and our boy Bill with Monica?  

The formula is simple:  There can be no Peace without Justice, there can be no Justice without Truth, there can be no Justice in the nation and the world without JUSTICE IN OUR OWN BACKYARDS.  Shumlin has violated Justice and Truth.  Are You Going To Let That Stand?

Have a nice day.

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

All right.  Enough of this silence shit (as Sean Connery might have put it in The Untouchables).  Little Dems must be doing the vigil game as the Shumlin/Dodge story gets worse and worser.  

It occurs to me that since I started voting here in Vermont in ’76, I’ve voted for a shitload of Dems.  That makes me a Little Dem myself–or as Leftfield would have put it: “A Lib-er-al Fuck.”  So, I hereby declare that, as of the 2014 elections, not one single Dem will get my vote, unless, of course, there comes about some kind of just resolution to the Jeremy Dodge SCANDAL.  I voted for Diamond in 1980, and every two years I vote for Ann Cummings and a whole lot of other Dems usually, along with my Liberty Union, Prog, and Libertarian choices.  But, from now on, I’m boycotting the Vermont Democratic Party, and I will urge others to do the same, unless, as I said, miracle of miracles happens, and Shumlin owns up, gives Dodge back his place and INSTRUCTS BILL SORRELL TO WORK WITH THE VERMONT ACLU AND VERMONT LEGAL AID IN INVESTIGATING ANY AND ALL CASES OF FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION OF THE POOR, ELDERLY, AND DISABLED BY OTHER VERMONTERS OR FIRMS OR ORGANIZATIONS IN OR OUT-OF STATE.  

This will, of course, include real estate deals, but hopefully, down the line, all ABUSE of the poor, elderly, and disabled needs to be addressed.  Bill Sorrell has apparently been QUITE REMISS in his duty as Vt. AG in investigating cases of abuse of the elderly and disabled.  If Sorrell continues to refuse to do his job, he should resign, or be voted out of office in 2014.  Same with Shumlin if he continues his UNETHICAL behavior in the Jeremy Dodge CASE.  

This “the alternatives are so much worse” BULLSHIT from the Vermont Dems needs to STOP NOW!  If I have to, along with my vote for Bill Doyle every two years, I’ll vote for other goddamned Republicans, if no Prog, Liberty Union, or Libertarian candidates are running in those particular slots.  I am FED UP with the HYPOCRISY that says it is better for the Democratic Party to be THE NAZIS than the Republican Party!

I will ‘strongly urge’ and write about and talk about this message:  BOYCOTT THE VERMONT DEMOCRATIC PARTY UNTIL IT STRAIGHTENS ITSELF OUT!

As of now, consider me a LibertyUnion-Progressive-Libertarian.  

A sitting Vermont Governor, who is also a MILLIONAIRE, has committed, while in office, what seems to me, close to a criminal act of financial exploitation against a Vermont resident.  Shumlin has hired none other than M. Jerome Diamond to cover his ass for him.  Who will Jeremy Dodge get for an attorney?  The firm of Larry, Darryl, and Darryl?  This is an OUTRAGE.  Something you expect from someone like Dick Cheney or Donald Trump.  IT IS THE WAY HENRY KISSINGER TREATED THE WORLD!

So, GET REAL, Dems.  This one won’t fly.  People will remember this one next year– Governor Illuzzi, etc.

Remember Nixon digging a deeper hole for himself, and our boy Bill with Monica?  

The formula is simple:  There can be no Peace without Justice, there can be no Justice without Truth, there can be no Justice in the nation and the world without JUSTICE IN OUR OWN BACKYARDS.  Shumlin has violated Justice and Truth.  Are You Going To Let That Stand?

Have a nice day.

UPDATE:

So…this morning’s (6/6) news (see front page, TA) has Shumlin offering the land back to Jeremy Dodge in exchange for payment of expenses he’s incurred.  Good (hmmm…).  And two Republicans calling for an investigation of the ins and outs of these kinds of real estate deals and how a low-income person’s property tax debt can be used by those folks with a predatory bent.  Good (hmmm…).  And Jerry Diamond saying that, yes, the property tax angles need to be addressed by the State Department of Taxes, and that the Attorney General’s office can offer its advice to that Department.  Good (Sorrell?…BIG hmmm…Where was he last fall?).  AND (yes, it gets better), the Dodge family seems to be delighted and willing to accept the Governor’s DEAL (again…hmmm…).

And I recommend we all now bow our heads in a moment of silent vigil.  For they have done it to us once again.  Well, at least they didn’t taser Dodge.  Or did they?  Amen.    

 

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

I love this story. It's been around, but I happened to catch it on NPR last night.

It seems that national Republicans are worried that they're losing their appeal to younger voters. As the head of the national collegiate Republicans said on the air yesterday, if the voting age had been thirty, Romney would be president today.

So they did a study to find out what their problem is with young voters, and they came up with an answer that should make regular readers of Green Mountain Daily very, very happy.

 And on the whole, young Republican voters seem to agree the party needs to change its image.

Yes, that's right.  The way they understand the problem, the Republican Party has an image problem. As NPR reporter Audie Cornish points out, “in focus group surveys, young, winnable Obama voters, they used the words like close-minded, racist, rigid and old fashioned when you did word association with Republican Party.”

 And the problem is what? That's right, image. Nothing to do with the positions of the Republican Party, and everything to do with messaging.

Of course, the problem is way more than image. It's not a matter of whether they should talk about “big government” when they are attacking programs that help people, it's really a matter of attacking the programs that help people. For instance, their platform calls for repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and they've voted to repeal it thirty-seven times. Meanwhile, millions of young adults have health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act, and millions are able to get contraception because of that same act.

 But you know what? That's fine with me, and it should be fine with you, too. Because as long as they keep lying to themselves about why the can't get any traction with young voters they're still going to be unable to get traction with young voters, and that's good for all of us.

Well, the inevitable has happened, per VTDigger:

Both sides of Shumlin-Dodge land deal lawyer up

And by “both sides…lawyer up”, we mean Governor Shumlin has hired one of the most prominent attorneys in Vermont, while Jeremy Dodge is trolling the far quieter waters of Vermont Legal Aid.

So, (1) technically, only one side has “lawyered up,” and (2) sounds like a fair fight to me. I’m sure Legal Aid will do a bang-up job against M. Jerome Diamond, who served three terms as state Attorney General (1975-81), was once the Democratic candidate for Governor, and is a founding partner in the law firm of Diamond & Robinson, where his client list has included “General Motors, Bristol-Myers Squibb, PhRMA, LexisNexis, Dish TV, and Orbitz,” according to his law firm’s website.

(He also touts his “strong relationships with state Attorneys General across the country,” which makes me wonder if he had anything to do with BIll Sorrell’s 2012 pre-primary grubstake. But that’s purely irresponsible speculation on my part. We now return to our story.)  

And now that Shumin’s hired a lawyer, he’s officially clammed up regarding the Dodge transaction. After all, pending court matter, would be improper to comment, harrumph harrumph. But his attorney has continued one of the less endearing aspects of this dispute: public disparagement of Jeremy Dodge.

“I’m expecting that Jerry and maybe a member of his family would meet with counsel shortly and select a counsel,” [Diamond] said. “And hopefully, if he remembers to pass my contact information along, that maybe I will get a call.”

Mmm-hmm. Attack the reliability of your opponent, and call him by his nickname. This is of a pattern with comments made by Shumlin before he lawyered up.  And I would suggest, now that this matter is becoming a formal legal proceeding, that such comments are no longer appropriate. If they ever were.

Just for the record, though, let’s review a sample of the Governor’s on-the-record descriptions of his “friendly neighbor,” as he called Dodge in his interview with the Freeploid.  

VTDigger:

Now, listen, this is a person who has a long criminal record. He is a violent offender. He has done horrendous things to innocent people.

Freeploid:

… I recognized that I was dealing with a person who had done some really despicable things to people… When I came onto the scene , it wasn’t just his property taxes, there was a whole menu of back bills, liens against the property, child support payments, a list of challenges a mile long…

…We’re dealing with someone who’s got a criminal record as long as my arm. As I mentioned, he’s done some really despicable things in his lifetime…

This is a violent offender who has done awful things to people.

Mitchell Family Organ:

“Here’s the thing about Dodge – when he’s sober and he’s not on drugs, there’s a lot to appreciate and respect about Jeremy Dodge,” Shumlin said. “When he is on drugs and he is not sober, he’s one of the most despicable human beings that you can deal with, according to what I’ve been told.”

With “friendly neighbors” like this, who needs enemies?

You know, if the Governor is really concerned about helping Jeremy Dodge get a fresh start, then he really ought to stop with the casual mudslinging. And he should tell his lawyer to do the same.

Two more notes. The VTDigger story says nothing about Shumlin’s previous offer to pay for Dodge’s legal counsel. For all I know, Dodge may well have rejected the offer. But its complete absence is curious.

Second, the terms of the dispute have hardened. Dodge wants to keep hold of the family homestead — which, despite Shumlin’s assertions to the contrary, he probably could if he received the tax relief he’s entitled to. Shumlin is willing to renegotiate terms, but he’s not willing to void the deal. In fact, he flatly told the Freeploid “I own the property.”

And my mind, unbidden, can’t help but recall the nasty things the Governor has said about his friendly neighbor. His express intent was to emphasize his charitable nature — helping a real down-and-outer, which nobody else was willing to do.

But when I look at all those comments together, I see another message from Our Man of the People: Would you want this guy living next door to you?

Maybe I’m being way too cynical. But the Governor, by his own comments and actions, has left the door open to cynical interpretations.  

This actually happened a while ago, but I didn’t notice it until Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz picked it up in his most recent “Winners & Losers” post.

Remember a couple of weeks ago, when Gov. Shumlin tried to quash the Jeremy Dodge land deal story by holding a series of one-on-one interviews with selected members of the State House media? You know, tell his side of the story, put on a little charm offensive?

Well, one of those interviews was with the Freeploid’s Terri Hallenbeck. And it didn’t start out well.

Gov. Peter Shumlin: “You’re going to video this? Oh, (expletive). We don’t want that. No, we’re not doing that.”

The “expletive” is left to our imagination. My first thought was “f*ck me,” but I eventually settled on the classic “shit.” The colloquy continues…

Burlington Free Press: “What do you mean we’re not doing that?”

PS: “We won’t do it. We’re not going to do that. Make up your mind. You want print, we’ll give it to you. We’re not doing video. Sorry to be rough, but you guys didn’t tell us. If you’d asked me I would have said no.”

“We’re not doing video” except…

BFP: “Are you not doing interviews with TV on this?”

PS: “Different kind of interview. Little teenie sound bites we give them, then we send them out the door. We want to have a conversation with you that’s not on video.” (Later, it would become apparent that WCAX-TV had videotaped a 20-minute interview.)

Yeah, that’s how you conduct a take-back-the-story campaign, and maintain good relations with your state’s biggest newspaper: reject a reasonable request for no stated reason, and lie to ’em in the process.  

So why no video for the Freeploid? I mean, they’re a newspaper, but like all media, they’re trying to multi-platform whenever possible. Video’s part of their toolkit.

And it can’t be the fact that he was in casual dress. Because he’s apparently quite fond of the shirt he wore that Friday, as pictured in the Freeploid; it also appears in the picture of Shumlin used by the Democratic Governors Association, shown nearby. (I’d show you the ‘Loid’s photo, except they jealously guard their copyright. But believe me, it’s the same shirt. Thrifty Vermonter, don’t ya know.)

Funny thing is, after being weaseled by the Governor, the Freeploid did him a great big favor by slow-playing his expletive-laced rejection. Hallenbeck didn’t mention it at all in her article on the Shumlin interview, published on May 25. Then, a few days later, the ‘Loid decided to post the full transcript of the interview online, expurgated expletive and all.

But they did nothing to call attention to Shumlin’s ungraciousness. The online post is simply entitled “The full Shumlin land deal interview.” And the ‘Loid didn’t put it in print — only online. Paul Heintz was apparently the first member of the media to notice the interview’s incendiary opening.

So, stupid move by the Governor, for no good reason as far as I can tell. He could have gotten hammered a lot harder for it, if the Freeploid had made a bigger splash. But hey, that’s what blogs are for.