The field of journalism is overrun with awards. If you can string a sentence together and hang around long enough, you’ll bag one o’ them suckers eventually. (See: George Will, Pulitzer.) But one thing is lacking: an award for the worst story of the year.

If there was such a thing in Vermont, we’d have our clubhouse leader for this year’s, mmmm, what shall we call it… Mark Smith Award (in honor of the retired Maximum Leader of the St. J Caledonian-Record, Vermont’s Worst Newspaper, yeah, that’s it)… Nancy Remsen of the Freeploid, for her complete clusterfrack of a story entitled “Political Affiliation Affects Message Reception on Government-Run Insurance.”

There’s so much awful in this story that I’m sure I’ll miss an item or two. But let’s start with the title*, which DUHHHHHH. Of course “political affiliation affects message reception.” Doesn’t it always? Hell, you’re a fool if you don’t consider the source. (Especially when the source is strongly partisan, and has an ideological stake in the issue under consideration.) But in the context of this article, the title means that some messages are unfairly maligned because of the messenger.

* And let’s not overlook the title’s crafty use of “government-run,” the conservatives’ description of choice for single-payer. Thumb on the scale much?

Aaaaaand your unfairly maligned messenger? None other than Wendy Wilton, stunningly unsuccessful Republican candidate for Treasurer, and author of at least two very different estimates of the additional cost of a single-payer health care system. There’s the one she trumpeted throughout the 2012 campaign, assigning a sky-high $3 billion-plus estimate that became the VTGOP’s rallying cry (for all the good it did them). And then there’s a second one which she released, much more quietly as far as I can tell, earlier this year, which pegged single-payer’s cost at about $2 billion.

Remsen ignores all that history, and focuses her attention solely on Wilton’s second estimate. Which, mirabile dictu, is in the same ballpark as the recently released Avalere study, commissioned by a coalition of business and health care institutions. And so, Remsen awarded the crown and scepter in Policy Wonk to Wilton, who accepted with all due fake humility:

“I’m just glad a little town treasurer with an Excel file and some spare time could come with the same number” as the well-paid consultant, Wilton said.

Gack.

After the jump: double and triple gack.  

…Despite her partisan history, Wilton said she didn’t set out to try to undercut Green Mountain Care. “I did the work because I was curious.”

Double gack.

Remsen then lists all the similarities between Wilton 2.0 and Avalere, which I guess proves WIlton’s credibility. Which “proves” the article’s thesis: Wilton was unfairly maligned due to her partisanship. Or, as her anti-reform crony puts it:

“If you are not on the go-along, get-along team, you are the evil stepsister,” said Darcie Johnston, another skeptic with strong Republican connections. The organization she founded – Vermonters for Health Care Freedom – also raised questions last winter about the cost estimate projected in the UMass study.

Oh, so now Johnston is another prophet without honor? Triple gack.

There’s a whole string of illogic running through this story. It completely accepts Avalere’s report as independent and untainted; as we pointed out last week, there are serious problems with that conclusion.

Avalere’s supposed impeccability is then used to “prove” Wilton’s. In the process, Remsen omits any mention of Wilton’s inconvenient 2012 misfire.

This, then, “proves” the thesis statement: “political affiliation affects message reception.” Which, as I said, needs no proof whatsoever. But the implication is that Wilton’s partisan background blinded us all to her wisdom. She is allowed to claim, unchallenged, that her own ideology had absolutely no effect on her estimates.

Which gives retroactive credence to the fundamental claim of Wilton’s 2012 campaign: that she was a policy expert with the training and experience to handle the Treasurer’s office. (When, in fact, the real policy expert was her opponent, Beth Pearce.)

Which is a nice step toward rehabilitating WIlton’s image for another run at treasurer.

All in all, Remsen and the Freeploid did a real solid for WIlton — if not for their readers. Inaccurate, illogical, uncritical, incomplete, misleading, and just plain weird. Ladies and gennum, your front-runner for the 2013 Mark Smith Award: Nancy Remsen, for “Political Affiliation Affects Message Reception on Government-Run Insurance.”  

Ah, the Ethan Allen Institute: stout defender against the onslaught of statist secular Satanic Soviet-style scams, scemes, subterfuges, and swindles. (I got a Thesaurus, yes I do.) Named in honor of the homegrown Vermont patriot, who rallied the Green Mountain Boys to drive New York carpetbaggers from our land. And, er, protect his own extensive land holdings, but let us not quibble.

The Institute that bears his name, and proudly carries the banner of Vermont independence and self-reliance, is a true homegrown success story.

Well, maybe not so much.

The Ethan Allen Institute, you see, is an affiliate of the State Policy Network, a web of state “think tanks” pushing identical far-right legislative agendas. All the SPN affiliates, including EAI, draw substantial funding from wealthy free-marketeers like the Koch Brothers. Given those facts, it’s fair to question whether EAI is pursuing a Vermont-centered agenda, or echoing the favored policies of its out-of-state paymasters. The New Yorker:

According to a new investigative report by the Center for Media and Democracy, a liberal watchdog group, the think tanks are less free actors than a coördinated collection of corporate front groups-branch stores, so to speak-funded and steered by cash from undisclosed conservative and corporate players.

SPN President Tracie Sharp insists that its member nonprofits are “fiercely independent,” but The New Yorker reports otherwise, based on notes from Sharp’s presentation to the SPN annual meeting in September:

Sharp explained what she called The IKEA Model. She said that it starts with what she described as a “catalogue” showing “what success would look like.” Instead of pictures of furniture arranged in rooms, she said, S.P.N.’s catalogue displays visions of state policy projects that align with the group’s agenda. That agenda includes opposing President Obama’s health-care program and climate-change regulations, reducing union protections and minimum wages, cutting taxes and business regulations, tightening voting restrictions, and privatizing education. “The success we show is you guys,” she told the assembled state members. “Here’s how we win in your state.”

She continued that, as with IKEA, the SPN would provide “the raw materials” and “services,” and each state institution would choose the items it wants. Which doesn’t seem to leave much room for deviation from the SPN platform.

She also acknowledged that SPN’s agenda is shaped by its (often anonymous) donors:

“The grants are driven by donor intent,” she told the gathered think-tank heads. She added that, often, “the donors have a very specific idea of what they want to happen.”

Lisa Graves of the Center for Media and Democracy on Sharp’s claims of independence:

“…in practical terms, the Center for Media and Democracy has documented how these groups have promoted … carbon-copy claims, identical language, and distorted statistics, differing only through the state label placed at the top of a particular report.” Far from being independent, “they are intensely subservient to the wishes of the most powerful few.”

And when you look at EAI’s agenda, as described by CMD, its cookie-cutter nature is abundantly clear: Privatization of public schools, climate change denialism, cutting corporate taxes and regulations, cutting public spending, opposing minimum wage laws, opposing health care reform. These are the issues, as CMD reports, that SPN affiliates are trumpeting nationwide.

Now, that might just be coincidence, or the confluence of like-minded people. But when you look at the money trail, the truth becomes clear: the Ethan Allen Institute gets a whole lot of money from the people and foundations behind SPN. If it depended solely on the charity of Vermonters, it would be a much smaller organization — if it existed at all.

The money trail isn’t easy to follow, and the figures are incomplete because nonprofits have very lax reporting requirements. But CMD has uncovered some telling numbers:

EAI’s total budget varies quite a bit, but it’s usually in the range of $170,000 to $250,000 a year. So when Donors Capital Fund kicks in $50,000 (as it did in 2010) or $63,400 (as it did in 2009) or when the South Carolina-based Roe Foundation  (founded by Thomas Roe, who was the founding chairman of SPN) kicks in 10 grand each and every year, it’s obvious that they have a lot of pull with EAI.

Donors Capital Fund, by the way, is basically a money-laundering outfit for wealthy conservative donors who don’t want to be publicly associated with their causes. According to the Bridge Project, a watchdog group that reports on right-wing political activity, Donors Capital Fund “is a philanthropic organization whose primary purpose is to protect the anonymity of its members.” Among DCF’s chief beneficiaries: the climate-denialist Heartland Institute, the Koch Brothers’ Americans for Prosperity Foundation, and the Federalist Society, a far-right law organization. And DCF provides the lion’s share of the State Policy Network’s funding.

This is the company that the Ethan Allen Institute is choosing to keep. Well, considering its bottom line, perhaps it has no real choice. But don’t think for a minute that EAI really has anything to do with, or any interest in, Vermont-specific issues or policies.

If so, then why would EAI draw such huge donations from all over America? Why would nonprofits based in Virginia, South Carolina, and California (The Jaquelin Hume Foundation) write four-, five- and even six-figure checks to a Vermont nonprofit?  

We don’t know exactly how much money EAI gets from out-of-state groups, because it doesn’t have to report donations in any detail. (It could, in the spirit of transparency, release the information on its own. I’m not holding my breath.) But from what we do know, EAI is pretty much a puppet organization, beholden to wealthy donors in other states. “He who pays the piper,” you know.

Which, it seems to me, is kinda-sorta exactly the opposite of Ethan Allen’s legacy, isn’t it?

In recent days, I’ve provided little bits of evidence that newly-minted VTGOP Chair David Sunderland — the guy who’s supposedly going to change the direction and tone of the party — is not, himself, at all moderate. I’ve also suggested that it wouldn’t be hard for someone in Vermont’s political media to do a little fact-checking. After all, Sunderland was in the Legislature from 2003-2008. During that time, he must have sponsored some bills, cast a lot of votes, given speeches, printed brochures, and raised campaign funds. Wouldn’t it be relevant, I thought, for news consumers to know the views and beliefs of the guy who now holds the top position in the state’s Republican Party?

Guess not, because if anybody’s gone digging, they haven’t seen fit to print or broadcast anything to speak of.  

Well, now we’ve got the goods — or at least some of them. Still out there somewhere, waiting to be uncovered: any speeches Sunderland might have made in the House or on the campaign trail during his five years under the Golden Dome; any campaign material he produced during his two runs for office; and any interesting names that might show up on his campaign finance reports.

But, thanks to a political wonk of my acquaintance with a lot of time on his/her hands, we can report some of the highlights of Sunderland’s legislative career. As you might expect, there’s no hint of moderation to be found. Indeed, Sunderland appears to be more conservative than then-Governor Jim Douglas on many issues. He was sometimes to the right of most Republicans in the House. In 2004 he got a 25% rating from the Vermont League of Conservation Voters, a measly 11% from VPIRG, and (of course) 100% from the state Chamber of Commerce. And he’s definitely got some toxic views on reproductive rights and other favored causes of the Christian Right.  

Speaking of which, Sunderland’s cause celebre was parental notification. He served in the Legislature for all or part of three sessions, and each time he introduced a bill requiring parental notification 48 hours before an “unemancipated minor” could have an abortion. Parental notification is the Right To Lifers’ fallback position in states where they know they can’t win passage of more serious restrictions.

A couple of other blots on Sunderland’s reproductive-rights escutcheon: He voted for a bill that would have imposed criminal penalties on doctors who performed abortions on a minor. And he supported a “women’s right to know bill,” which would have required women to undergo counseling before making a health decision. And we all know what that means.

And, in another sign of his Christianist leanings, he voted against a bill to add gender identity or expression to existing anti-discrimination laws.

Some other highlights and/or lowlights:

Health care: For a guy whose first press release as VTGOP Chair was an inaccurate attack on Governor Shumlin’s alleged plan to kill Medicare for Vermonters, Sunderland has a really bad record on health care reform. He sponsored a bill promulgating the free-marketeers’ favorite “reform” idea: opening Vermont’s health insurance market to policies sold in other states. In short, bringing all the benefits of credit-card deregulation to the healthcare sector.

He voted against funding for the Medicaid program and the office of Vermont health access. He opposed a bill to increase “transparency of prescription drug pricing and information,” which easily passed into law. According to Project Vote Smart, he voted against establishing Catamount Care in two separate session.

Education: Right out of the Ethan Allen Institute/ALEC playbook. He supported a bill to establish a school voucher program in Vermont. He sponsored a bill to force school-district consolidation: it would have set up 14-16 “supervisory unions.” The S.U. boards of education would have been in charge of negotiating teacher contracts. He sponsored a bill to create “a moment of silence in schools” — the Religious Right’s backdoor way of getting prayer in the public schools. And he was on the losing side on a bill to expand pre-K education.

Workers’ rights: In addition to the school consolidation bill that would have established S.U.-wide teacher contracts, Sunderland also sponsored a bill to reduce workers’ compensation benefits and require drug testing for all recipients. And he voted against a 2005 bill to raise the state minimum wage from $6.25 to $7.25.

Other:

— He supported a bill that would have sealed all records of internal police investigations.

— According to Project Vote Smart, he opposed a bill to establish same-day voter registration.

— He backed a bill to weaken Act 250 by increasing the minimum lot size triggering Act 250 review from 10 acres to 20.

This is just a sampling of David Sunderland’s public record. If anyone can point out instances of “moderation” in his legislative tenure, I’d love to hear it. From what I know of him so far, I’d have to say that not only is he not a moderate — he’s solidly in the right wing of the Republican Party. And he shows obvious signs of Moral Majority-ism, which definitely puts him out of Vermont’s mainstream.

Perhaps he can set all of this aside, and work toward a more inclusive VTGOP. But he’ll have to tamp down his own political views, including those that are faith-based. That’s a lot to ask of someone with opinions as strong as his.

It says something about the state of the VTGOP that this guy is the best the “moderates” could do. And it does, again, raise questions about how “moderate” they really are.  

In my previous diary, I deconstructed the new independent study of a single-payer health care system in Vermont. The study posited a higher cost estimate ($1.9-2.2 billion) than did the Shumlin Administration’s study ($1.6 billion). But its conclusions rested on some very sandy soil: it was full of qualifiers with very few definite conclusions. And the purpose of the “independent” report was not to objectively assess the single-payer concept; it was to find “potential fallacies” in the Administration’s study.

But even so, its worst-case estimate wasn’t dramatically higher than the Administration’s. At least not when you compare it to the renowned “model projection” by Lenore Broughton’s favorite “expert,” Wendy Wilton.

She ballparked the cost of single-payer at “over $3 billion annually.” Her report, which is a meaty three pages long, was a red flag constantly waved by conservative Republicans in the 2012 campaign. And now a study designed specifically to poke holes in Shumlin’s plan, produced an estimate much, much lower than Wilton’s. Hmmm.  

Now, normally I wouldn’t waste time writing about a failed candidate who managed to lose badly against a novice politician (Beth Pearce) despite the virtually unlimited financial support of Lenore Broughton & Co. But Wilton is still haunting the dark corners of Republican politics; she was on the conservative slate for top party offices at last weekend’s convention, and it wouldn’t surprise me one little bit if she were to run for State Treasurer again next year.

So, let it be known on this day, November 15, 2013: the centerpiece of Wilton’s last campaign has been thoroughly, if indirectly, debunked. I do hope this will be remembered when she tries again to win the state’s top financial office.  

Also, her 2011 report is still posted on Vermonters for Health Care Freedom’s website. In light of this new information, will Darcie “Hack” Johnston’s pet cause/meal ticket do the honest thing and disavow Wilton’s report?

Nah, didn’t think so.  

So the latest news in the saga of Vermont’s health care reform effort was the presentation to lawmakers of an “independent study” on the costs of a single-payer system. It found that the administration’s estimated cost of $1.6 billion may be low: its estimate of the true cost is between $1.9 and $2.2 billion.

This made headlines across the state, and caused a few mild cases of the vapors under the Golden Dome.

But a few caveats are in order. Also, don’t believe what you saw on TV.

First off, I’ll point out that the study was done at the behest of hospital, medical, and business groups. VTDigger:

Vermont Partners for Health Care Reform – a coalition of groups that consists of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont, Vermont Medical Society, the Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Fletcher Allen Health Care, the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, the Vermont Assembly of Home Health and Hospice Agencies and the Vermont Business Roundtable – paid Avalere, a Washington, D.C-based research and consulting firm, to carry out an analysis.

Now, that doesn’t prove the study was flawed or slanted, but its conclusions should certainly be taken with a grain of salt. (I also have to snicker at the name “Vermont Partners for Health Care Reform,” which would more accurately be “Powerful Institutions Fearful of Health Care Reform.”)  

Then again, maybe I’m just being my cynical old self.

But let’s move on to what the study actually says about single-payer’s cost.

After the jump: a covey of “coulds,” a smoking gun, and WGOP strikes again.

The Freeploid:

• Doctors and other health care providers could see significant reductions in reimbursements, which might affect recruitment and retention.

• Hospitals also could see revenue losses based on the reimbursement scheme the administration used to explore future financing for a single-payer system.

• Health insurers already have reduced administrative expenses to a point where the projected savings of switching to a government-run system could result in negligible savings.

• Doctors still would have costs for processing insurance for out-of-state patients and those whose employers continue to offer insurance.

Please note the abundant qualifiers. “could see significant reductions… which might affect recruitment…” “could see revenue losses…” “could result in negligible savings.”

It’s all those “coulds” that add up to the extra $300-600 million. Doesn’t sound very definite to me. In fact, it might be a sign that there was, indeed, a thumb on the scale. And well, whaddya know, buried in VTDigger’s account is a big greasy thumbprint:

Vermont Partners for Health Care Reform commissioned Avalere to comb through the financing plan for “assumptions”- in other words, potential fallacies…

Oh, so it wasn’t an objective evaluation of single-payer; it was a single-minded search for flaws. Er, things that could be flaws. And, of course, they found a few.

Gov. Shumlin’s director of health care reform, Robin Lunge, was unfazed by the report, and offered a very detailed response. I won’t repeat her points here; go read ’em on Digger if you want more.

The real goal of this little dog-and-pony show is to try to slow momentum toward a single-payer system. One of the report’s authors, Bob Atlas, used the dreaded words “bold experiment” in relation to single-payer — words certain to make lawmakers dive under their desks. And, tellingly, he noted that

“The current plan may not be the only path or the most painless path to the outcomes you are looking for.”

In short, single-payer is a dangerous thing, and if you decide to chicken out, you can still declare victory.

I beg to differ. Single-payer is exactly where I want to go. That’s the point. I’d hate it if this report gives jittery lawmakers a pretext for dumping universal health care.

And now we must, sadly, turn our attention to our friends at WGOP — I mean, WCAX-TV. Its report strips away all those pesky “coulds” and presents the outside study as plain old fact, under the headline “Single-payer to cost Vt. more than first thought.”

WCAX also misrepresents the group that commissioned the report:

Consultants independently hired by the state’s hospitals… told legislators the cost is more likely to fall between $1.9 billion and $2.2 billion.

Hmm, “the state’s hospitals.” So neat, so clean. Conveniently omitting the Chamber of Commerce, the Vermont Business Roundtable, and the state’s largest health insurance company.

WCAX downplayed Lunge’s coherent, detailed critique of the report by saying that she “quibbles with some of the new report’s methodology.” Quibbles, eh? Makes it sound like she objected to the font size or paragraph spacing.

Oh, WCAX, the spirit of Marselis Parsons is strong with you.

Anyway, color me unimpressed by the report. I hope it goes away as quickly as it arrived.  

While perusing the headlines on VTDigger today, I couldn’t help noticing this photo.  

Anything jump out at you?

Something definitely jumped out at me. This:

Wow. Death stare!

Look out, Governor! Sunny Phil is fixin’ to go all Brutus on your ass.  

Late add: New evidence of Sunderland’s conservatism! See below, after the jump.

The newly-elected chair of the Vermont Republican Party, David Sunderland, took office with the backing of moderate (relatively speaking) Republicans, and with a promise to “rebrand the party, making it more palatable to moderates and independents.” There was much talk of a change in tone, an effort to be more civil in political discourse.

And then a couple days later, Sunderland issues his first press release, and damned if it isn’t straight out of the Jack Lindley playbook: wildly exaggerating a comment by Governor Shumlin and giving it the worst possible interpretation.

The comment: Shumlin said he would seek federal waivers to bring “everybody into the [insurance] pool.”

Sunderland’s interpretation: OMG OMG SHUMMY’S GONNA KILL MEDICARE AND VETERANS’ BENEFITS!!!!!!!

Governor, some will interpret that as an expression of your intent to kick Vermont’s senior citizens off of Medicare and to disallow Vermont’s honored veterans from continuing their health care coverage through Tricare.

… The Vermont Republican Party stands ready to defend our seniors and veterans against any takeover of the federal healthcare plans they currently have and enjoy.

Shumlin quickly responded, saying he had no intention of ending senior health programs in Vermont, and making it clear he appreciated the unintended irony of the accusation, since it’s usually the Republicans who bash “federal healthcare plans.”

“I’m glad you see the benefits and popularity of government-run health care programs like Medicare and Tricare, both of which cover millions of Americans regardless of their financial situation.”

Yeah, Governor, swat that fly.  

Okay, so exactly when does David Sunderland start “making [the VTGOP] more palatable to moderates and independents”? So far, it’s the same-old same-old.

Plus, it’s decidedly far removed from Phil Scott’s own position on health care, which is to try to help make reform better instead of indulging in partisan piling-on. Could this be the first crack in the “moderate” alliance?

______________________________________

p.s. My fellow GMD front-pager BP is apparently a more skillful archive-diver than I, because he uncovered some decidedly damning evidence that Sunderland is not, and has never been, a “moderate.” This comes to us from the late lamented Peter Freyne, writing way back in 2004 after then-State Rep. Sunderland had won a spot on the House GOP leadersihp team.

On first blush the new House GOP team looks like more of the same. Hube is tight with Freed’s old “inner circle” that included Reps. Judy Livingston and Patty O’Donnell.

And Sunderland is definitely in tight with the GOP God Squad. Last session, Sunderland’s first, he cosponsored a number of Sister Nancy Sheltra’s bills restricting abortion access and requiring parental notification.

Another was H. 415, which would have required public-school kids to observe a daily moment of silence while seated at their desks so those who wanted to pray could pray.

God bless us and save us!

Since health care is at the top of the Democratic agenda, we wondered what Sunderland’s views were.

We found an article he wrote a couple years ago describing Democrat Doug Racine’s call for single-payer, universal coverage, “a state run, Soviet-style, tax-funded health-care system.”

Great.

A little red-baiting will certainly liven things up.

Congratulations, J. Edgar Sunderland!

Written as only Freyne could. And while the 2013 Sunderland has (so far) abstained from red-baiting the health care issue, you can see the same Karl Rovian “hit ’em below the belt” political style.

We here at GMD look forward to more of Sunderland’s “moderation.”

(And we still wonder why nobody in our political media has produced a story exploring Sunderland’s political history and allegiances. Also, maybe someone could ask him where he stands on reproductive rights and if he still thinks single-payer is “Soviet-style”.)

They call it “the news hole.” It’s the amount of space (or airtime) you’ve got to fill. Sometimes it’s not nearly big enough; sometimes it’s a gaping maw staring you down as deadline approaches. And when that happens, it’s time to break out the Hamburger Helper and mountainize those molehills.

The titans of Vermont journalism bring us two prime examples today: The Freeploid, filling its front-page Big Story news hole with a thoroughly underwhelming story about “possible cases” of time-sheet fraud by state employees, and Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz filling most of his weekly “Fair Game” column far-fetchedly fulminating about a possible case of political nepotism that didn’t, in fact, actually happen.  

Let’s take ’em in order, shall we?

The Freeploid’s transparency bloodhound, Mike Donoghue, has conducted “a more than two-week investigation” into time sheet fraud. Well, when you spend that much time, you’d damn well better produce something. And even though Donoghue found precious little, the ‘Loid decided to put it on the front page today.

How little? Since the Jim Deeghan case broke in July 2012 — when, presumably, state officials started giving the green-eyeshade treatment to every single time sheet — the state has “investigated 21 cases of possible time-sheet fraud by employees. …Four cases have been referred to law enforcement for possible criminal invdestigation.”

Now, we’d hope the number would be zero, but let’s look at what Donoghue actually has here.  

The state has a workforce of about 8,000. There are 21 “possible cases.” By my calculator, that’s one-quarter of one percent of all state workers, or one worker out of every 400 who might have committed fraud.

But out of those 21 “possible cases,” only four — FOUR — have been referred for “possible criminal investigation.” That’s one-twentieth of one percent. The numbers are tiny, and the “possibles” are rampant.

If the state has done a thorough review of time sheets and only found four potential criminal cases, I’d call that a big fat victory for good government. Again, it’d be nice if the number was zero, but hey, this is the real world. If I ran a corporation with 8,000 employees and found only four had padded their time sheets, hell, I’d be relieved.

Beyond that, the Freeploid was severely limited in what it could report because state officials won’t release information about ongoing investigations. As they shouldn’t. Which meant Donoghue had to find something to fill that Big Story news hole. He managed to get details of one time-sheet case — so he reported every single detail of that case, which remains unproven. Donoghue, of course, names the state employee and fills roughly half of the article with every bit of information he could get.  

Which I have to say, isn’t at all fair to the employee, who has yet to be indicted, let alone convicted. If he ends up in court, then Donoghue’s coverage will have been retroactively justified. If the case washes out, then the employee will have been subjected to public disgrace for no reason other than the Freeploid’s need for a Big Story every damn day.

And now, on to the current occupier of the Peter Freyne Chair in Political Punditry and this week’s installment of “Fair Game.” “The Huntsman” fills the bulk of his news hole with a story that deserves far less.

The story in one sentence: former Vermont health care guru Anya Rader Wallack offered a job to Governor Shumlin’s daughter shortly after Wallack’s company got a no-bid consulting contract from the state.

Aha! Featherbedding!

Well, Heintz labors mightily to make it seem so. But there appears to be a lot less to the story than he’d like you to think.

Rader Wallack, as you may recall, stepped down from her state health-care job earlier this year because her family lives in Rhode Island and she couldn’t take the workweek separations and long drives anymore. Nine days after her departure, her consulting firm Arrowhead Health Analytics won a no-bid contract worth $100,000.

I’ll pause here to note a dirty rhetorical trick pulled by Heintz:

Barely a week after her departure, Secretary of Administration Jeb Spaulding signed a no-bid contract with Rader Wallack’s consulting firm to oversee a $45 million federal grant she had helped Vermont obtain while she worked for the state.

Wow. “Barely a week after her departure.” Smells awfully fishy, doesn’t it? But here’s the real lowdown:

Rader Wallack announced her resignation in March, with a departure date of July 31. The contract was signed on August 8. Heintz’ framing is technically true, but distorts the reality. Rader Wallack’s departure was a known fact for almost five months before the consulting contract was signed.

But aside from that, Rader Wallack was uniquely qualified to oversee the consulting contract because (a) she’s a world-class expert in the field, and (b) she was intimately involved in Vermont’s reform process from day one. If ever a no-bid contract was justified, it was here: the state could take advantage of Rader Wallack’s expertise without requiring her constant presence in Vermont.  

Now we turn to the implication of featherbedding. Heintz reports that a few weeks after Arrowhead got the contract, Rader Wallack offered an assistant’s job to Shumlin’s daughter Olivia, who’s about to graduate from Brown University.

Aha, I can almost hear Rob Roper saying. Rader Wallack gets a fat contract and hires the Governor’s daughter for a plum job! Shady Shummy at work!

Problem is, Heintz doesn’t have the goods. All he has is a timeline, which he lays out in the most pernicious possible way. Some mitigating factors:

— This is a low-level job, the kind Rader Wallack gives to “people right out of college who need experience.” Sounds like a glorified internship to me. (There’s no mention of the job’s pay grade.)

— Rader Wallack has a history of hiring politically-connected grads, including the sons of Gaye Symington and KSE Partners lobbyist Bob Sherman. You could say she’s greasing the wheels, or she may simply be hiring people she’s come to know in the course of her daily business: “Rader Wallack said she had met Olivia Shumlin several times at political events and came away impressed.”

— In the end, Olivia Shumlin didn’t take the job. Even if there was supposed to be a quid pro quo, it didn’t actually happen.

Heintz actually takes credit for that:

…in response to questions from Seven Days, Gov. Shumlin’s spokeswoman, Sue Allen, wrote in an email, “Liv is not going to work for Anya. She did receive an offer, but declined.”

Maybe the Seven Days inquiry did kill the offer. If so, then congratulations, Paul: you labored mightily and brought down a mouse.

But he still has some column inches to fill, so he goes on to muse about the possible conflicts of interest that might have happened.

It’s unclear whether state-contracting regulations would prevent a recent administration official from hiring a family member of the governor to help implement a state contract. But the state’s executive code of ethics, which was signed by Shumlin and governs him and members of his administration, would appear to bar him from using his office to advocate for such employment.

In short, the situation may or may not have run afoul of state rules, and if the Governor had pushed for his daughter to get the job, it “would appear” to be an ethical violation. But Heintz admits he has no proof whatsoever that Shumlin was actively involved at all.

After that, Heintz fills out his word count with intimations of possible backscratching. He raises a series of questions left unanswered because he doesn’t have the answers. All he has is a bunch of questions.

And even if all his hints and intimations were true, this’d be more a molehill than a mountain.

Ah, the news hole. It’s big, it’s dark, and it sucks. Hard.  

In a move reminiscent of the Nobel Committee giving its Peace Prize to a President who, at the time, presided over two wars, the Brattleboro Retreat has given its annual humanitarian award to Governor Shumlin — the man who made the Retreat the southern linchpin of his decentralized mental health inpatient system, and who, ever since, has nervously watched the Retreat’s efforts to live up to its commitment.

The Anna Marsh Lane Award, sez the Retreat, recognizes “individuals for their advocacy on behalf of people with mental illness and addiction.” Shumlin took home the award at a gala fundraiser (for the Retreat) on Saturday night.

I call it backscratching, or logrolling if you prefer, since the Gov and the Retreat have been in bed together since Tropical Storm Irene flooded out the old State Hospital. Shumlin vowed never to reopen the old facility, and laid out a plan for a radically decentralized, community-based mental health system.

(Since then, of course, he’s had to compromise his Grand Vision in two ways: he’s boosted the number of inpatient beds statewide and especially at the new State Hospital in Berlin, and he’s had trouble shaking loose the funding for the robust outpatient support that might help keep people from needing hospitalization.)  

The Retreat happily signed on to the effort, and took home a heapin’ helpin’ of post-Irene reconstruction dollars. Which gave a welcome boost to the old bottom line, but also made the Retreat’s job significantly tougher. It’s had trouble hewing to the high standards required for inpatient care of the severely mentally ill. It’s had a couple of close shaves with losing its federal certification, and there’s still uncertainty over whether it will be able to fulfill its commitments.

Giving the award to Shumlin is, like Obama’s Nobel, premature at best, ironic at worst. It’s still unclear if his revised vision will work: we’ve lived through two-plus years (and counting) of a chronic bed shortage for patients who would have gone to the State Hospital in the past, and it’s unclear whether the new system, once it’s fully up and running, will be able to accommodate the demand. Those who work in the system are basically crossing their fingers and hoping for the best.

If I were giving the Marsh Award, I’d give it collectively to everyone who’s been struggling to maintain quality of care in a horribly under-resourced situation — doctors, nurses, aides, administrators, etc. But hey, that wouldn’t have made for a nice splashy fundraiser. And it wouldn’t have allowed the Retreat to scratch the back of its most powerful supporter.  

So, Vermont-based groSolar has a plan. It wants to build a 2.3-megawatt solar array on a piece of vacant land in Rutland town, with 60-foot setbacks on all sides and plans for suitable landscaping to provide a visual barrier. The land is located less than a half-mile from the very busy (and ugly) Rutland commercial strip on Route 7, and is zoned “industrial.” Steve Remen of groSolar told the Rutland Herald (paywalled):

“We feel solar is one of the least offensive uses for land that was designated industrial,” he said. “There will be no emissions or noise, there will be no increase in traffic, we require no services from the town, and we are a net contributor to the town.”

So we’re all fine here, no?

Nope. (This link is to a shorter, non-paywalled version of the story.)

A group of Rutland residents is opposing plans for a 15-acre 2.3 megawatt solar power installation that would be built in a field in the Vermont town.

The group Vermonters for Responsible Solar was formed by three neighbors of the plan for the project in an empty field off Cold River Road in the town of Rutland.  

Aaargh.

Let’s take that “neighbors” thing first. This ain’t no neighborhood in any real sense of the word; it’s a wide-open stretch of rural land with a dotting of houses on one side of the road. You’d be hard-pressed to walk from one to the next. “Nearby landowners” is closer to the mark. Still, they’re demanding a 200-foot setback on all sides, plus other, unspecified, “new siting standards for solar projects.” (The site is long, its top half is narrow and includes a dogleg. A 200-foot setback would dramatically cut the potential size of the array.)

The brand-new “group” (with a membership of, ahem, three) must have a little money behind it. They’ve got a website, they’ve got professionally printed signs posted in the area, and they’ve hired a professional PR person as spokesflack. And, on top of all that, they’re willing to buy the property if the groSolar deal falls apart. Maybe these people are wealthy enough to do all this on their own, but I suspect there are links to other anti-renewable groups around the state. (Which, I suspect, have links to the broader, fossil fuel industry-funded anti-renewable movement. I can’t prove it because none of these groups will disclose any information about membership or funding.)

I have predicted this in the past: that the anti-wind crusade would, sooner or later, turn its attention to solar.  

And lest you think I’m overreacting to an outbreak of NIMBYism by three landowners, I’ll point to its use of the phrase “solar sprawl” on its website. And then I’ll point to a recent opinion piece by La Doña Quixote herself, Annette Smith, in which she employs the essentially identical phrase “energy sprawl” in making a case for strict new limits, not only on the ridgeline wind turbines she’s fought so tenaciously, but on any kind of renewable expansion in Vermont:

Of all the technologies, big wind turbines create the most issues. Biomass is next, followed by solar. Fortunately these issues are quantifiable and finite. Once identified, conversations can follow. For instance, should photovoltaic installations first be constructed on the already-built landscape? Should prime agricultural soils be avoided? What are the stormwater runoff implications of fields of solar panels, and are those impacts being adequately anticipated and addressed? Looking at what has been installed so far, can we point to “good” and “bad” installations and learn from them? What do we want to see more of and what do we want to see less of? What are the issues for historic districts? Scenic areas? And firefighters?

Firefighters?  You expecting the panels to burst into flames?

What you see here is Smith’s throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-hope-something-sticks approach to advocacy: bring up every conceivable notion you can think of, no matter how farfetched (or already disproven) in an attempt to make your case look bigger than it is. Kind of like a pufferfish. “What are the issues for overflying aircraft? Amateur astronomers? And pizza delivery guys? Vermont needs to KNOW.”

With her deployment of the phrase “energy sprawl” and the questions posed above, Smith lays down a marker: any kind of energy development on currently undeveloped land is unacceptable. That is truly an extreme position. It would cripple our ability to get anywhere near our renewable-energy goals. And it would prevent us from being part of the solution to climate change: all new projects would be fought, tooth and nail. Some projects would be abandoned, and all would face lengthy delays.

Now, I’m all for reasonable standards for new energy development. Many sites are unsuitable for historic, scenic, environmental, practical, and other reasons. And nobody is calling for border-to-border solar panels, any more than they’re calling for turbines on every ridgeline. (Relatively few ridgelines are feasible for turbine deployment.) But we can’t abstain completely from the clean-energy transition in the service of someone’s concept of purity.

Call me crazy, but when I see a solar installation or a turbine array, I see Vermont being a productive part of a clean energy future, with clean-source production distributed across our landscape, urban, suburban, and rural. I want to see Vermont make wise use of its clean-energy resources. Maybe even become a net exporter of energy. It’d do a lot to fight climate change, and drive our economy as well*, with little real impact on our environment.

*Every time we say “no” to an energy project, we’re forgoing short-term jobs and long-term tax revenues. That doesn’t mean we should greenlight every project, but it should definitely be a consideration when we don’t have enough money to support the kind of government we’d like to have. It’s a choice we have to make.

When we reject new energy sources, we tacitly embrace the existing ones.  Instead of exporting clean energy, we are exporting the environmental damage caused by fossil fuels, nuclear power, and the gigantic hydro projects in northern Quebec. That’s nativism: Vermont-centered thinking that ignores the broader issues in play. (The alternative “clean energy plan” devised by Luke Snelling of Energize Vermont relies heavily on nuclear power and Hydro Quebec as its “clean” sources.)

Well, I’ve come a long way from an undeveloped parcel in Rutland Town. But I’m alarmed at the prospect of an anti-solar movement fueled by NIMBYism, nativism, and quackery. And it’s already getting started.