Hey, the first campaign finance reporting deadline has come and gone. And the big news — just about the only news of significance — is the size of Governor Shumlin’s war chest.

One… MEEELLLLEEEEOOONNNNN… dollars.

Well, to be precise, one million seven thousand five hundred dollars and sixty-two cents. As proudly displayed on the superfluous cover sheet accompanying his finance report. (Hey, you can see all the reports online at the Secretary of State’s website! Fun times.)

I suspect the purpose of the cover sheet is to get that seven-figure total RIGHT IN YOUR FACE. It’s certainly got to be a daunting sight; and I daresay it’s unprecedented for any state-level candidate at such an early point in the season.

Gotta be giving any potential Republican challenger a serious case of Shumlin Affective Disorder, which inflicts Vermont Republicans with an ominous, all-encompassing sense of dread that Peter Shumlin will be Governor as long as he damn well wants to be.  

This isn’t all new cash; the Gov had nearly $700,000 in his kitty from 2012, when he spent very little while breezing to re-election. He did, however, raise about $320,000 in a time when other candidates are barely getting their acts together. Can you say “perpetual campaign,” boys and girls?

The other thing worth pointing out is that (as VPR’s Peter Hirschfeld pointed out) Shumlin raised the bulk of the new money from out of state: $240,000 from outside Vermont compared to $80,000 from within. That new gig as head of the Democratic Governors Association really helps, doesn’t it?

I’m sure the Republican response will be “Governor Shumlin Is Beholden To Out Of State Interests And Doesn’t Care About Vermonters,” which, pfui. If the Republicans had enough pull to bring in out-of-state money themselves, they’d do it in a Dick Cheney auto-tuned heartbeat. I think the Governor did a smart and, well, in a way, generous thing by going outside Vermont to stuff his vault. After all, he’s leaving the fertile fields of Vermont Democratic fundraising potential to other candidates who can’t go elsewhere and who will actually need the money.

Maybe he’s even telling local donors to spread their money elsewhere — say, for instance, defending the Dems’ legislative majorities and its statewide officeholders. Or even putting a little cash into the Lieutenant Governor’s race. Spread the wealth, spread the victory.  

For those just joining us, I’m in the process of considering various legislative proposals to help the poor and working poor in Vermont. Part 1 explored the obvious political horse-trade by Democratic leaders: minimum wage increase in, paid sick leave out. Only one, apparently, can be allowed to pass.

Now, we turn to three separate bills designed to fix some issues with Vermont’s social safety net. None of them are radical in any way, but each would be a step forward. In a time when the poor, working class and middle class are under stress and opportunity seldom seems to knock, these relatively minor measures will provide some indication of the Democrats’ stomach for facing the bigger issues. Or, to be more precise, if these bills fail, it’s hard to see the Dems tackling any of the really tough battles.

All three cleared the House Human Services Committee last week, but supporters must navigate some choppy waters to steer them to ultimate passage. (At least they’re not up a creek without a paddle.)

House bill 620 would make the state liable for overpayments to 3SquaresVT (food stamp) recipients caused by the state’s own mistakes. As you may recall, Vermont’s food stamp program has had a high error rate which led to federal fines and the requirement to pay back any excess benefits. Imposing that burden on recipients seems awfully harsh since (1) they committed no fraud, and (2) repayment would be a challenge for people on public assistance.

The bill would require $640,000 in state funds. Ann Pugh, chair of the House Human Services Committee, has said she favors the bill but doesn’t know where the money will come from.

Which, c’mon, really? Every year there are unexpected costs and crises are foretold, but somehow the state always seems to find the money. And this would be a one-time expense, not an ongoing commitment. I do know this for a fact: it’d be a lot easier for the state to find $640,000 than for 3Squares clients to collectively do so. And the overpayments were the state’s fault.

The bill passed Pugh’s committee on a lopsided vote, but if it fails because lawmakers can’t find the cash, this would be a big FAIL on their ledger.

After the jump: easing “benefits cliffs” in temporary shelter and Reach Up.

House bill 699 would eliminate a requirement that homeless Vermonters eligible for “temporary shelter” pay half their income towards housing costs in order to receive continued shelter. This is a good example of the “benefits cliff” phenomenon, in which a program effectively punishes someone for finding work.

As Chris Curtis of Vermont Legal Aid points out, “This is a bad policy that ‘traps’ people in the motels, leaves them with little or no income to get out …It makes more sense to allow homeless Vermonters to save every dime they get and use it to save up for longer term (hopefully permanent and affordable) housing options.”

H. 699 as passed by Pugh’s committee would reduce the 50% requirement to “no more than 30%.” Which is better than the status quo. But we’ll see how it fares in the full House and Senate.

Finally, H.790 addresses the “benefits cliff” in the Reach Up program which, again, discourages employment. The bill would do two things: double the asset limit for Reach Up recipients, and increase the “earned income disregard.” For those unschooled in the language of social services:

The asset test requires recipients to have no more than $2,000 in assets. H.790 would increase that to $5,000. According to Curtis, very few recipients actually exceed the asset limit. “Illinois eliminated its asset test last year and discovered in all the tens of thousands of cases they have only 8 were over the asset threshold.” That state had been spending far more on staff time to check up on clients’ assets than it saved by enforcing the limit.

As for the “earned income disregard,” Reach Up recipients begin to lose benefits as their incomes rise. Currently, the disregarded income is the first $200 of earnings plus 25% of earnings. Recipients lose very little in entry-level jobs, but when they make a move up the ladder they see their benefits drop. Often, the lost benefits are worth more than the additional income. That’s what you call a disincentive to work.

The original H.790 would have provided a 100% disregard for the first six months, with stepdowns to 75% for three months and 50% thereafter. If the aim of Reach Up is to get people back on their feet and into career paths — and we now have lifetime caps on Reach Up benefits —  the higher disregards would go a long way to helping folks permanently escape poverty.

A House committee reduced H.790; the current bill creates a disregard of $300 plus 50%, which is a significant step in the right direction.

But there’s a worm in the apple. The Committee chose to fund the bill by effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul. VPR’s Peter Hirschfeld:

The House bill raises the funds by instituting an across-the-board reduction in welfare benefits for all of the approximately 4,700 families on the program. Spread out over such a large number, the cut isn’t huge.

It would be, in fact, about $16 for the average Reach Up family. As Curtis told VPR, it “may not sound like much to some people, but for many low income families, that may be diapers and milk for the week.” Curtis and other poverty advocates are trying to find other ways to pay for the program — but given lawmakers’ extreme disinclination to add items to the budget, the advocates have an uphill battle.

Lawmakers who support the current iteration of H.790 say that recipients wouldn’t have to work much to gain back in the disregard what they’d lose in the across-the-board benefit cut. Which is easy for them to say, and harder for recipients to accomplish. Again, we’ll see whather this or any other version of H.790 makes it across the finish line.

Conclusion. These are three good ideas for improving the functionality of our social safety net without significant additional cost. As I wrote above, this is something of a test for the Democratic majority: if they can’t find the courage (and the money) to enact these rather moderate and common-sense ideas, it’s hard to be optimistic about real efforts to improve the lot of the poor and working poor.

We shall wait and see.  

There’s been a lot of activity in the Legislature on efforts to help the working poor and fine-tune social services programs. Some of it’s positive; some of it is dismayingly timid. And some of it is — surprise, surprise! — more political than programmatic.

The most obvious two-step (or three-card monte, if you prefer) has come on raising Vermont’s minimum wage and establishing mandatory paid sick leave. That’s the subject of this diary; in Part 2, I’ll get to a trio of bills aimed at improving the state’s response to poverty.

At the beginning of the 2014 session, there was a lot of support for sick leave, but little or no visible momentum behind a minimum wage hike.

Fast forward to last week — Crossover Week for legislation to earn passage in the House or Senate, and a convenient kill date for any unwanted bills — and there was Governor Shumlin giving a hearty endorsement to raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour over the next three years. (While taking back part of the increase by eliminating inflation adjustments for the three-year period.) Awfully late to be pushing a top priority, and a surprising turnaround for a guy who, in December, gave minimum-wage the official Shumlin Kiss Of Death in a meeting with Senate Democrats:

“I’m willing to enter into any conversation about ways to ensure we have an equitable minimum wage,” he told the senators. Then came the predictable: “Obviously with everything we do, the devil is always in the details.”

Which is what he always says when he means, “I’m against it and will do what I can to kill it.” Indeed, “willing to enter into conversation” and “the devil is in the details” are two phrases in my Peter Shumlin News Conference Drinking Game, along with pet phrases like “grow jobs and economic prosperity for Vermonters” and “hardworking Vermonters” and “I don’t hear any Vermonters pleading with me to raise their taxes.” It’d be a fun game, and it’d result in much shorter pressers, since all the reporters would be completely hammered by the 15-minute mark. Next time, bring your flasks, fellas!

But I digress, surely I do.

The genesis of this Seismic Shummy Shift was outlined in last week’s Seven Days by Alicia Freese, subbing for Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz and — maybe, possibly — becoming the first woman to write the paper’s weekly political column? Freese chronicled Shumlin’s apparent falling in line behind President Obama’s call for an increase in the federal minimum wage — perhaps a political necessity for the head of the Democratic Governors Association.

Shumlin’s endorsement of the wage hike – followed by his declaration that Vermont would go it alone even if other states back down – blindsided many back home.

… “The governor hasn’t expressed that desire to me,” said Sen. Kevin Mullin (R-Rutland), referring to the minimum wage proposal.

… “We knew it was out there, but the focus and attention and debate and vote counting by leadership has all been on paid sick leave up to this point,” said Jim Harrison, president of the Vermont Grocers’ Association, a group that opposes both pieces of legislation.

Harrison’s expression of surprise is a tad disingenuous, since he and his allies had gotten a heads-up on minimum wage on February 27. As reported by the Freeploid’s Terri Hallenbeck on March 3,

A group of store owners gathered Thursday in the Statehouse, where they heard from the state’s top power brokers. They had an audience, one after the other, with Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, Gov. Peter Shumlin, House Speaker Shap Smith and Senate President Pro Tempore John Campbell.

The store owners were worried about three items: sick leave, minimum wage, and a bill to establish a tax on single-use shopping bags.

What they got in response, in between some of the usual fluff, was some pretty good intel about what to expect from the Legislature this year. Namely: The bag tax is a long shot, paid sick leave is pretty much dead, but raising the minimum wage is for real.

Hallenbeck quoted Shumlin as saying “I know you’re not going to agree with me… but I do want a higher minimum wage.” She also got a dismayed reaction quote from Jim Harrison. So he knew about the minimum-wage push long before he reacted with fresh dismay on March 10. As did, I have to imagine, Kevin Mullin and everyone else under the Dome.

But my larger point about all this is: it’s an obvious effort by top Dems to placate the business community by whacking paid sick leave in favor of a minimum wage increase.

(This is why I had such a strong reaction to Speaker Smith’s assertions that “the landscape [isn’t] right at the moment” to pass the sick-leave bill. Earlier in the session, there were strong indications that the bill had broad support; now the Speaker claims he can’t carry it across the goal line. Which comes conveniently after he and his fellow leaders gave assurances to store owners that the sick-leave bill was “pretty much dead.” I smell a backroom deal.)

My question is, why not both? It’s not like the Dems will face an electoral challenge anytime soon.

One of my pet peeves about Vermont’s political leadership is their temporizing and moderating and apparent timidity, even as they enjoy the closest thing to political dominance this side of Vladimir Putin. When I look at what conservative Republicans are doing in states where they have majorities — even much slimmer majorities — it makes me wish for a liberal Democrat to take the same approach as a Scott Walker or Rick Snyder or Bobby Jindal: leveraging political power to move the state significantly to the left, instead of being all incremental all the time.

Besides, if the business groups weren’t so short-sighted, they’d be okay with a minimum wage increase. Each of them takes a tiny hit, to be sure; but they all benefit from the fact that the working poor actually have more money in their pockets. They won’t be socking that money away in their Cayman Islands accounts; they’ll be spending it — whad’ya know — at their local grocery stores!

Recent economic research has also found that a higher minimum wage — whad’ya know — reduces workforce turnover, which means lower expenses on training and recruitment.

But no, our esteemed Wise Men of Business can’t see beyond their next payroll day.

But I digress, again. My point is, it’s nice to see the sudden support for a long-overdue hike in the minimum wage, but it’s depressing to see the sick-leave tradeoff. We’re facing big structural problems, and this incremental approach (while more politically palatable in the short run) is not going to cut it.

Next time, in part 2 of The Anti-Poverty Hokey Pokey, I’ll look at the uncertain prospects for some legislation aimed at solving some problems in our social safety net.  

Following a routine audit, the Federal Election Commission has issued a “finding” against the Vermont Democratic Party, over technical violations of federal rules. The finding was distributed and explained at Saturday’s meeting of the state party committee.  

The audit covered the 2009-10 election cycle. From the FEC report:

…the Audit staff determined that VDP did not maintain any monthly logs, as required, to document the percentage of time each employee spent on federal election activity. For 2009 and 2010, the Audit staff identified payments to VDP employees totaling $203,472, for which monthly payroll logs were not maintained.

… In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, VDP submitted a plan to pay all employees with 100 percent federal funds. Further, VDP said it would maintain monthly timesheets for all employees paid with federal/non-federal allocated funds, in order to track the percentage of time each employee spends on federal election activity.

The VDP’s plan was accepted by the FEC; no penalties were assessed.

The Republicans may try to make hay of this, but there really isn’t any scandal here. “There was no malfeasance, just inadequate bookkeeping,” said newly-installed VDP Treasurer Tim Briglin.  

The VDP was not singled out for scrutiny. Each election cycle, the FEC does a number of audits of randomly-selected state party organizations. The Vermont Dems’ number happened to come up in 2009-10.  

More detail on the rules violation (warning: Do Not Operate Heavy Machinery While Reading This Paragraph): Party committees must keep monthly logs of the time each employee spends on federal election activity. Those who “spend more than 25% of their time on federal election activities must be paid only from a federal account,” while those who spend no time on federal activities may be paid with funds that comply with state law. Between zero and 25 percent, “employees… must be paid either from the federal account or be allocated as administrative costs.” During the audit period, the VDP failed to keep those logs.

Still awake?

Since 2010, the party’s internal structure has been beefed up significantly. Compliance with campaign law is now being overseen by Selene Hofer-Shall, who has over a decade of experience with campaign finances dating back to Howard Dean’s Presidential campaign of 2003-04. On her watch, any further “inadequate bookkeeping” seems highly unlikely.  

Had a new experience this weekend: for the first time in my life, I attended a meeting of the Democratic State Committee. Open to the public and media, although I was the only attendee in the latter category.

Sounds tedious, but I actually learned some newsworthy stuff. And, in spite of the occasional outburst of procedural blah-blah, it was a positive experience. The room was full of people who’d voluntarily given their time to help build and maintain a political party. They are Democrats, who believe strongly in the party’s principles and put their belief into action. It was inspiring, really.

(I’m sure I’d get the same impression from a Progressive Party meeting. And maybe even from a Republican Party meeting, if only I could ignore the content and focus on the people.)

(I say “mostly” friendly because I had a heated confrontation with one attendee who vehemently disagrees with my views on a couple of issues. More on that another time, maybe.)

There are a couple of items I plan to write up separately, but here’s a collection of Stuff I Learned:

Look for an early-August primary. Senate Penitent Pro Tem John Campbell told the committee that Vermont’s primary would be moved back, most likely to August 8. In recent years, delays in finalizing primary votes have caused problems with getting ballots to military personnel in time for their votes to count. “We’re stuck,” he said. “If we don’t move it, the feds will.” He pointed to other states that will now have primaries in June as a result of federal law. He doesn’t want to move it back that far, because it would force a much earlier start to campaign season.

We have a red-hot hopeful for Lieutenant Governor. John Bauer is the only declared Democratic challenger to Phil Scott; the party is still open to other candidates, but he gave a strong presentation to the committee. “People seem to think it’s unwinnable,” he said. “‘Phil Scott’s a nice guy with a nice car, and he can’t be beaten.’ But we have a strong party.”

Bauer’s got lots of energy — and enough one-liners to publish a Phil Scott Jokebook. “I look forward to challenging Phil Scott on his views — once I can figure out what they are.” Ba-DUMP-bump. “He’s got a race car and I’ve only got a canoe — but he’s driving around in circles, and I’m moving forward.” Rimshot!

He’s also got a serious vision for the office: a sort of “civic R&D department” that could develop ideas to make our economy and our government work better. Sounds like an improvement on Phil Scott’s “Job For A Day” grandstanding.  

If Bauer is the nominee, he’ll need his energy and his jokes, because he won’t have a big budget. Bauer said he will use the public-financing system, which means a $50 limit on individual gifts. I think the party would like to find a higher-profile candidate, but we could do a lot worse than John Bauer.

After the jump: a telecom rumor, a warning against complacency, and a fix is coming for a public-sector pension shortfall.

An interesting piece of telecom gossip. Campbell was peppered with questions about broadband access in Vermont; committee members from rural areas are hoping the Administration isn’t content to declare victory and stop trying. One committee member, whose name I didn’t get, cited rumors that Fairpoint is “hemorrhaging money” and might have to (again) declare bankruptcy. If true, he said, the telecom firm would be in no position to build more broadband capacity. (And you have to wonder about its ability to deliver any kind of reliable service.)

There was no response to the rumor; Campbell and administration officials assured the committee that broadband-expansion efforts are continuing.

Bracing for battle in November. Party chair Dottie Deans (who kept a firm hand on the proceedings) warned against complacency in 2014. It went without saying that the Dems’ majority isn’t seriously challenged and Governor Shumlin will almost certainly be re-elected; but Deans noted that “when Democrats vote, the Democrats win” — something that doesn’t always happen in non-Presidential years. She said the party will be emphasizing voter registration and Get-Out-The-Vote efforts.

For his part, John Campbell stressed the importance of the Coordinated Campaign. Every Democratic candidate is supposed to pay into the fund, but he said that some are reluctant — particularly those who face no serious opposition in their own races. He noted that the party has built quite an electoral machine, but added that “sometimes people take the machine for granted.” Of paying into the Coordinated Campaign: “I say you’re not doing it just for your race; you’re doing it because you’re a Democrat. It’s essential that we continue with the Coordinated Campaign, especially since the Republicans are doing it now.”

The notion that the VTGOP is showing signs of life was a common theme. The Dems’ data guru John Faas reported that the Republicans have added “about 200 more town committee members. They’re doing stuff at the town level,” which will begin to energize the party from within. Faas also said he’s working to identify possible pickup opportunities in the Legislature and races where incumbent Dems may be in trouble.

Statewide, Deans predicted a strong Republican effort to unseat Secretary of State Jim Condos because of the GOP’s focus on voter registration and access issues.

Public sector pension underfunding. Campbell noted that for years, the state has failed to adequately pay into public-sector funds, and efforts are continuing to close the resulting shortfalls. He reported that State Treasurer Beth Pearce “has come up with an ingenious way” to close the sizeable gap in the fund for retired teachers’ health insurance. He didn’t give specifics, because details are still being finalized and discussions with the teachers’ unions are still underway.

That’s it for now. If any attendees think I got anything wrong, feel free to post a comment below.  

Interesting words from Shap Smith, Speaker of the Vermont House and political operator of great renown.

They came in a piece by Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz, tanned and rested from a midwinter vacation*, about the pending failure of a bill to mandate paid sick leave for Vermont workers. I say “pending failure” because, although the measure seemed to have broad legislative support, the air has suddenly gone out of its balloon.

*Location unknown, although scurrilous unfounded rumors suggest Dick Cheney’s favorite quail ranch.

The final pinprick was delivered by Mr. Speaker himself:

“I don’t think the landscape right at the moment is conducive to passing the legislation,” the speaker says.

Methinks Paul omitted a verb between “landscape” and “right,” but never mind. The passage I wanted to highlight has to do with Mr. Speaker’s reputation as a master strategist.

As for Smith, he says there’s a reason he rarely suffers defeats on the House floor.

“I do not think the idea of putting a bill on the floor to see whether it can swim to shore is a good idea if you don’t think it has the strength to swim to shore,” he says. “One of the reasons that I’m known as somebody who can get stuff done is that I don’t put things on the floor that fail.”

Mmmm. Oh. I see. So the reason you have a winning record is you never take up fights you might lose. I call that Profiles in Courage, for sure.  

 It’s as if Big Papi begged out of a series against the Tigers by saying “One of the reasons that I’m known as a good hitter is that I try to avoid facing guys like Justin Verlander and Max Scherzer.”

Or Evel Knievel attempting a daring motorcycle jump over, not the Snake River Canyon, but Christy Canyon, because “One of the reasons I’m known as a successful daredevil is that I try to avoid jumping over things I might not be able to clear.”

Or Diana Nyad foregoing the Cuba-to-Florida swim in favor of a Lake Champlain crossing along the route of the Fort Ti Ferry because “One of the reasons I’m known as a distance swimmer is that I only attempt crossings I know I can finish.”

I don’t really think Shap Smith was trying to undermine his own reputation. What I do think is he’s grasping for rationalizations, and in an effort to avoid the truth (Democratic leadership caving to the business community, part no. 4,266,148), he stumbled upon the “Aw, shucks” ploy.

But just for the record, people become “known as somebody who can get stuff done,” not by ducking the tough battles, but by actually getting the difficult stuff done.  

The deLismanization of the putatvely nonpartisan advocacy group Campaign for Vermont continues apace, with the hiring of a new Executive Director — CFV’s first paid staff person. (If you don’t count Bruce Lisman, who effectively paid himself by underwriting the million-dollar-plus cost of the organization through its first three years of existence.)

And to be fair, CFV made an interesting choice: Cyrus Patten, currently director of comprehensive care at the HowardCenter and a clinical social worker by trade. The sum-total of his experience in politics consists of a brief stint in Colorado:

Community Relations

State Representative John Kefalas

November 2008 – May 2009 (7 months)

Consituent (sic) relations, policy research, assistant to the Representative, community organizing/event planning.

Deputy Campaign Manager

People for John Kefalas

July 2008 – November 2008 (5 months)

Volunteer recruitment/training, strategy consultation, canvassing, phone banking.

And yes, Kefalas (now a Colorado State Senator) is a Democrat.

Aside from that, Patten has spent most of his brief adulthood in social services work. Well, that and “Special Events Guy, Scooper, Shop Manager” for Ben and Jerry’s from 2001-2003. How Vermonty!

He’s also got a rudimentary website where he claims to be a “Social Change Agent. Educator. Nonprofit Administrator. Consultant.” And where he throws out a bushel of buzzwords to describe the Wonders Of Cyrus Patten:

I am a systems thinker, focusing on efficiencies in the nonprofit sector.  As a social worker by training, I look at multiple levels concurrently, seeking to eliminate redundancies and break down conventional management assumptions.

Sounds like he’s got aspirations to get out of social services and into a more entrepreneurial form of nonprofit work. Which he has now done. Congrats!

There’s nothing wrong with having aspirations, of course, and theres nothing in Patten’s background to insinuate that he’s not a nice guy. One could question his political chops for running a statewide organization that will need to (1) reinvent itself organizationally and financially, (2) create a public image separate from that of its founder and sugar daddy, and (3) repair its relationships with the state’s political leadership.

Because a lot of folks in Montpelier don’t like CFV. At all.  

The group has repeatedly tried to hog the credit for initiating debate on a wide variety of issues, and hamstrung its transparency agenda by singling out State Rep. Mike McCarthy as an example of conflict of interest, when it only takes a few minutes on The Google to find numerous examples in the part-time Legislature. Aside from that, there’s the whole issue of the baggage associated with its founder, ex-Wall Street kingpin Bruce Lisman, and the pro-Jim Douglas chest-pounding of CFV co-founder Tom Pelham. And the fact that its rhetoric has frequently targeted the state’s Democratic leadership. And the fact that its membership, while including some moderates and a few Democrats, skews strongly to the right.

Quite a lot for a guy with less than one year of experience in the political arena. And none of it in Vermont.

So where does this leave Mr. Lisman? Hovering in the shadows:

“Bruce is still the on the board, but he’s not the chair. He’s just kind of an active participant,” Patten says. “I think he realizes he’s done the heavy lifting in the beginning and it really has been gaining traction. He realizes that this is truly a grassroots-driven campaign, and he wants to give it the legs and freedom to be that.”

Hmm. Maybe Patten does have the political chops after all; there’s quite a bit of first-class dissembling in that single paragraph. “Kind of an active participant,” for starters; I doubt that Lisman will be content as “one among many” when he’s already dumped a million Brucey Bucks into CFV.

Then there’s the claim that “it really has been gaining traction”; I’d love to see the evidence for that. Membership has grown, but becoming a “member” of CFV requires absolutely no commitment aside from signing up. It’s like Vermont Country Store claiming its entire mailing list as its “membership.” As for “gaining traction,” see the list of political missteps above. At the start of this year’s legislative session, CFV got a lot of publicity for its push on ethics reform; but now, that appears to be dead in the water, and CFV’s role is a mixed bag at best: it did draw attention to the issue, but it also alienated many of the officeholders who might otherwise have voted for reform.

The big whopper is “truly a grassroots-driven campaign.” Nonsense. It’s been entirely a Bruce Lisman-driven campaign. If he hadn’t bankrolled CFV, it would never have existed.

Finally, “he wants to give it the legs and freedom to be that,” which kind of implies that it ISN’T “that” now, and hasn’t been “that.” Which belies the “grassroots-driven” claim. And when Patten says “legs and freedom,” he’s really saying that Lisman won’t keep cutting checks forever. Indeed, he acknowledges that “A big goal is to get the organization in a self-sustaining place as soon as possible.”

And if Cyrus Patten’s political experience is a bit thin, well, he has even less experience at fundraising.

I give Patten the benefit of the doubt. Judging solely by his resume, he’s a good guy with good intentions. But he’s got a hell of a lot of work to do.

Campaign for Vermont could succeed; with Republicans continuing to be disorganized, underfunded, divided, and largely irrelevant in the state’s power structure, CFV could become a home for disaffected Republican donors. For them, CFV could be the best way to provide a counterweight to Democratic hegemony, and a tool to keep the Dems from edging too far to the left.

It could. But if it doesn’t establish a solid donor base, a stronger and more independent image, and positive lines of communication with the Powers That Be, it could just as easily begin sliding toward pollitical oblivion.

Either way, I bet Bruce Lisman’s potential legatees are breathing a sigh of relief. For them, the last three years must have been like watching an aging relative give generous donations to some TV preacher.  

So, Governor Shumlin has announced he won’t be unveiling his financing plan for single-payer health care until after the 2014 election. Even by his lofty standards, it’s a formidable display of sheer political chutzpah, a full-on crotchgrab directed at anyone who might dare challenge him for re-election. “You’ll know my plan when I tell you my plan,” is what he seems to be saying. “You want some? Come get some!”

Okay, a bit of blogger’s license there. But look: if the Governor was in any danger whatsoever, do you think he’d continue to flout “the statutory requirement to present financing options in January 2013,” not to mention drawing the ire of Republicans and testing the patience of Democrats and Progressives who’ve advanced him a whole lot of credit for his promise of a workable single-payer plan? And the promise keeps on receding into the future. “Re-elect me, and then we’ll talk.”

No, he didn’t say that. Not exactly. But here’s what he did say on VPR’s Vermont Edition last Friday:

“I’m saying to my team, ‘don’t spend a lot of time getting committees that won’t even be the same committees working on something that isn’t going to be voted on anyway, and that we don’t have the answers for yet.'”

Which implies that he’s got a funding plan, or he’s close enough that he could unveil it this year if he wanted to, but ehh, why should he?

Why indeed. Must be nice to be bulletproof.  

Apparently there were some second thoughts about the brazenness of his VPR statement, because by Monday he’d changed his tune:  

“We’re not ready, it’s as simple as that,” Shumlin said at a press conference Monday.

… “All I’m saying is let’s get this right. That’s more important than meeting some arbitrary deadlines,” he said.

“Arbitrary” has, I guess, become a synonym for “statutory.” I’ll remember that when I see a speed limit sign on the freeway. You can almost hear the exasperated sigh in Senate Minority Leader Joe Benning’s reaction:

“I’ll have to confess it doesn’t surprise me,” Benning said Friday of the news that financing concepts had been put on hold.

Yeah, I don’t think it surprises anyone, Joe.

On the one hand, Shumlin’s move is politically savvy: He doesn’t have to subject his financing scheme to a full year of scrutiny and criticism, so he’s not going to. Sure, opponents will be able to attack his nondisclosure; but a defined plan would be a much juicier target. It could even create divisions within the Dem and Prog camps. (I’ve heard rumblings that some Progs are having second thoughts about single-payer because of how it might be structured and paid for.)

On the other hand, hubris is a terminal condition in politics: an excess of confidence leads to complacency, which in turn leads to carelessness (at best) or corruption (at worst). And that leads to defeat.

Back in the early 90s, Canada’s Conservative Party was a dead man walking. After the thoroughly corrupt Brian Mulroney years, followed by the brief and feckless Kim Campbell premiership, the Liberals had a stranglehold on power. But after 15 years of bumblef*ckery and scandal, the Liberals were out and the Conservatives were in. And now, Stephen Harper is remaking Canada in a very fundamental way. I don’t wanna see that happen in Vermont.

And this display of cockiness on the Governor’s part, although it won’t cost him a damn thing in the short run, is a bad sign for the future.

Shumlin talks about the “heavy lift” that will be required to enact single payer. Well, in the next biennium he’ll also be under the gun to deliver some sort of school-funding reform. You don’t think that’ll be a heavy lift as well? Dem lawmakers had best start hitting the gym. If they think the kitchen’s getting a bit warm now, wait till they tackle both of those issues at once.  

Earlier today, I read the single best piece of journalism to date on the genesis of Vermont’s health care exchanges. It’s an excellent reporting job by Neal Goswami of the Vermont Press Bureau; and unfortunately for non-subscribers, it’s behind the Mitchell Family Paywall. If you have access to the Times Argus or Rutland Herald, or can find a copy at a local library, it’s well worth your time.

It’s on the front page of the Sunday (March 9) Times Argus under the title “Vt.’s Health Exchange: The Inside Story.” Goswami conducted numerous interviews with key players, plus one well-positioned anonymous source, and came up with a thorough and believable account of how the launch of Vermont Health Connect went so badly wrong.

Short version: Everyone deserves some of the blame, but no one person or entity is particularly at fault.

Longer version: The whole process was severely handicapped by the court battle over the Affordable Care Act. It was signed into law in March 2010, and set a deadline of October 1, 2013 for health care exchanges to be active. But the legal challenge wasn’t resolved until summer 2012, so work on the exchanges didn’t start until a little more than a year before the deadline. As Governor Shumlin told Goswami: “…obviously no governor or president was going to spend time and a lot of money implementing this law that none of us knew if parts of it would survive a Supreme Court decision.”

And, since Obamacare was a political football in 2012, there was no chance Congress would agree to an extemsion.

The court delay meant there was little time to waste, which meant that any additional setbacks would be doubly harmful. And, of course, setbacks there were. The Administration chose Oracle as its main contractor;

But troubled by setbacks in Oregon, Shumlin dropped Oracle and signed a new deal with CGI… in December 2012. This left just nine months to complete an information technology project that would normally take at least two years, according to an official with CGI.

The Administration stands behind its decision to dump Oracle, pointing out that Oregon’s troubles have been much worse than Vermont’s.

Goswami provides two accounts of what happened from January to October 2013.

CGI says that, due to time constraints, it promised a limited but serviceable site by October 1, with more features to be added later. CGI claims the Administration initially agreed to this, but later added more requirements.

For its part, the administration puts most of the blame on CGI for, as an anonymous government official put it, promising a sportscar and delivering a clunker.

On October 1 the scope of the problem became clear, and more troubles came after the site went live. As Goswami reports,

Facing such mounting challenges, a normal IT project would have seen the launch date extended, or the budget would have gone up to allow for more resources. But the Affordable Care Act had a fixed date and the money was set.

Part of the problem within state government, according to Goswami’s anonymous official, was a division of relevant expertise. The Department of Vermont Health Access had the policy smarts to provide strategic guidance, but lacked the ground-level experience needed to make tactical decisions on business rules and IT. DVHA head Mark Larson sees it differently; he says the single biggest problem was a lack of time.

Since the first of this year, Goswami reports, the state and CGI have put their heads together, clarifying responsibilities and workflow, and renegotiating some parts of the contract. Canceling the CGI contract was considered, but the Administration decided that would cause more problems than it would solve. The two sides now appear to be working much more harmoniously.

All in all, Goswami paints a picture of an extremely complicated project jammed into a very short timeline due to the Obamacare court challenge and Vermont’s contractor switch. After that, relatively minor mistakes had huge consequences. The result was our October 1 disaster and the months of scrambling to fix the system.

No catastrophic management failure, no corruption, no scandal; just a bunch of human beings working under incredibly difficult circumstances — circumstances largely not of their own making.

Could things have been handled better? Sure. But by far the biggest problems were (a) the sheer complexity of the task, and (b) not nearly enough time.

Read Goswami’s piece if you get the chance. It probably does a better job of telling the story than any number of internal or independent investigations will.  

Hey, remember the POOP Council? The Governor’s unfortunately-acronym’d advisory council on Pathways Out Of Poverty?

Well, it has unsurprisingly acquired a new name — Pathways From Poverty — and has just begun to do its work. And a friend of GMD dropped me a line about something that happened at its most recent meeting.

The gist of it was this: Agency of Human Services attorney Ken Schatz addressed the Council on the subject of the Open Meeting Law. He contended that the Law did not apply to advisory councils such as PFP, but that the Governor wanted PFP to voluntarily abide by the Law with one significant exception: Whenever the PFP meets with the Governor himself, the meeting would be closed.

Confirmation from Chris Curtis, PFP co-chair and attorney with Vermont Legal Aid. “[Schatz] advised that the Council is technically exempt from the Open Meeting Law, but the Governor would like us to observe it.” Except, he added, when the Governor is present.

“I expect the idea is that the Governor would be able to have a free and frank exchange” in a closed meeting, Curtis said.

On the one hand, I can see the rationale. On the other, it sounds very much like Vice President Dick Cheney’s argument for secrecy surrounding his infamous oil-industry-heavy Energy Task Force, convened in the early days of the Bush Administration.

After the jump: Shumlin’s office responds.

Shumlin spokesflack Sue Allen confirmed Schatz’ reasoning (that advisory councils are exempt), and said the same standard had applied in the Dean and Douglas Administrations: “The philosophy is that it’s much easier to give candid advice to the Governor when there’s not a TV camera in your face.”

She added that “we’d be happy to accommodate a change if the Council wants it,” but the Administration would not initiate such a move. Curtis gave no indication that closed meetings with the Governor would trouble PFP members, so the status quo appears to be in no danger.

Here’s what the Vermont Secretary of State’s website has to say about which bodies must abide by the Open Meeting Law.

This open meeting law applies to all boards, councils and commissions of the state and its political sub-divisions (i.e. municipalities), including subcommittees of these bodies. This means the open meeting law governs meetings of selectboards, planning commissions, boards of civil authority, recreation commissions, municipal public library trustees, auditors, listers, etc.

“…all boards, councils and commissions of the state” would seem to be broadly inclusive. But according to Schatz and Allen, advisory councils have been considered exempt for at least the last 20-plus years.

It may be an established idea… but is it correct? I haven’t spoken with Schatz, but I suppose the principle is that “advisory” bodies are less official than regular entities. By their very nature, advisory bodies can’t make any policy decisions. I can see the reasoning. But I’m not sure I buy it.

In reality, it’s doubtful that hordes of reporters would be clamoring for admittance to a meeting of the PFP Council. Unless, of course, you tell them they can’t get in. Which is what the Administration has just done.