“It’s dull. Dull. DULL. My God, it’s dull. It’s so desperately dull and tedious and stuffy and boring and des-per-ate-ly DULL.”

The timeless words of Mr. Anchovy came to mind with distressing frequency during today’s broadcast of “Vermont Edition” on VPR. It was a good old Reporters’ Roundtable, with three Statehouse journalists* killing an hour by batting around political stories about Tuesday’s primary and the outlook for the general election. (Guests: Terri Hallenbeck of the Freeploid, Peter Hirschfeld of the Vermont Press Bureau, and John Dillon of VPR. Host: Bob Kinzel.) And since there’s precious little suspense to be found in Vermont’s 2012 campaign, the reporters didn’t really have much to talk about.

*Given the diminished status of the Vermont media, a single IED could have decimated our political press corps. Paul Heintz would have been the Last Man Standing.  

Which didn’t stop them from talking, although it was pretty obvious that none of them had much enthusiasm for the task. It was like a group of shoppers in the worst second-hand store in the world — examining various forlorn objects, searching fruitlessly for something worthwhile.

(Although, funny thing, in their rote rundown of the political outlook, they completely omitted some stuff that I find fascinating.)

The biggest problem is the paucity of suspense in this campaign. Barring a huge surprise, the Dems will retain sizable majorities in the Legislature and will dominate the statewide races except for Lieutenant Governor and possibly Auditor. (With all due respect to Cassandra Gekas.) But the reporters couldn’t simply admit this. Tor one thing, it’d violate their false sense of objectivity; for another, they have a professional interest in heightening the suspense. They need stories, and in a time of ever-shrinking news holes, they need to capture the attention of editors and readers. (In that order.)  

So they started by tossing out the question of whether Annette Smith might wield some influence on the gubernatorial race. Well, for starters, the number of Progressive write-in votes is significantly short of Martha Abbott’s — and at least some of those write-in votes will be for other people. So her odds of winning a ballot spot are short indeed.

And even if she does get on the ballot, how much influence will she really have? She has the active backing of a few hundred single-issue voters. She’s never run for office before. And as for the gubernatorial debates, she might be a forceful advocate for her chosen issue, but what is she going to do the rest of the time? WIll she have any answers on health care, education, taxes, economic development, crime, corrections, infrastructure, etc.? I think the debates would expose her, instead of bolstering her cause.

But still, it was the closest thing to potential interest in the gubernatorial campaign that the reporters could find.

They then went down a laundry list of issues, asking the question, “Could _______ be a good issue for Randy Brock?” The answer, generally speaking, was “Maybe.” Left largely unspoken were some fundamental truths about the Shumlin/Brock matchup:

1. Shumlin has huge advantages across the board:  fundraising, organization, and most of all, the fact that he’s done a pretty decent job as Governor.

2. Incumbents never lose, Bill Sorrell’s close shave notwithstanding.  

3. Brock has failed to raise anywhere near enough money to be competitive.

4. Brock has shown no sign of being the kind of dynamic figure that could galvanize the voters.

5. Brock has run a hard-right campaign that will alienate moderates and cement Shumlin’s built-in edge with a left-leaning electorate. (This is a question I wish the panel would have tackled: “Why has Brock run so far to the right, when the only Republicans who do well in Vermont are centrists?”)

So, after ignoring all those salient facts, they dutifully ticked off the other statewide races. They spent a fair bit of time trying to gin up interest in the Attorney General’s race, pretty much omitting the fact that Jack McMullen is a joke of a candidate — even if you leave out the unfortunate Fred Tuttle affair.

There was, generlaly speaking, a curious lack of consideration for the role of money in the campaigns. They mentioned that Beth Pearce had vastly outraised Wendy Wilton, but otherwise the candidates’ relative fundraising prowess was largely ignored. Nobody mentioned Brock’s perilous financial state.

About the only time when the reporters went out on a limb — or, to be more precise, took a single gingerly step away from the trunk — was when they acknowledged that Vince Illuzzi has the early edge in the race for Auditor. They correctly observed that Illuzzi is more politically skilled than Doug Hoffer; but they did not broach the most interesting subject in that race: why the Dems and their donors haven’t done more for Hoffer.

The broadcast wasn’t helped by the fact that the reporters seemed to be walking on eggshells throughout — being very careful not to say anything that might be interpreted as bias or jumping to conclusions. Well, either that, or their natural speaking style is slow, halting, and colorless.

It made for an unrelentingly bland hour of radio. I don’t recommend that you bother catching tonight’s rebroadcast or listening online. You won’t learn much of anything.  

Since the Democratic primary for Attorney General is now over, the Incredible Shrinking Pack of Vermont Journalists has dutifully turned its attentions to the Man in Waiting — Jack “Six Teats” McMullen, the Republican challenger so cavalierly dismissed by Bill Sorrell on primary night. The Freeploid, VTDigger, and the Vermont Press Bureau attended McMullen’s post-primary news conference* where he outlined his agenda. And, it seemed to me, there were quite a few “off” notes.

*Since the primary wasn’t actually decided until that morning, wouldn’t McMullen have been wise to postpone his presser? I realize it was scheduled in advance, but why not put it off for a day and have a news cycle all to himself?



The big item on ol’ S.T.’s agenda is some kind of a War on Drugs that seems to be an amalgam of right, left, and fuzzy. Plus a couple of ideas that strike this non-lawyer as fundamental changes to the way our legal system works.

McMullen held the presser outside a Burlington house in a neighborhood reportedly victimized by a rash of burglaries. His approach to fighting “drug-driven crime in the state of escalating proportion” (parse that one, amateur grammarians!) starts with a delineation between violent and non-violent drug crimes*. Violent offenders would be dealt with harshly, while the nonviolent would be diverted into treatment.

*So, is burglary violent or nonviolent? Just askin’. I’m sure Jack’s homeowner/host would like to know if his burglar is headed for the pokey or the Betty Ford.

Also, for dealing with the violent, he wants some sort of coordination by the AG among the county state’s attorneys that sounds an awful lot like the AG telling the state’s attorneys what to do. Digger:

“With 14 different state’s attorneys addressing the problem, you have an uneven approach to it and what that means is that the bad guys can figure out where the seams are and then work them,” McMullen said.

Somehow I doubt that drug gangs are conducting in-depth analyses of the counties’ sentencing patterns, and targeting their crimes accordingly. I think they go where the money is.

But aside from that, it sounds like Jack wants to eliminate prosecutorial discretion and centralize punishment standards in the person of the Attorney General. Which is dandy if you’re the AG, but is that the way our system is supposed to work?

For the nonviolent drug offenders, treatment would be the preferred option. Wait, what? Is Jack McMullen a secret Democrat? Coddling criminals, calling for expanded treatment? He even promised to lobby the Legislature for more money for treatment programs. To help how many people? Freeploid:

McMullen said he didn’t know how many offenders could be diverted to treatment.

Not even a guess? Awkward. I guess Jack is still boning up on this Attorney General stuff.

Speaking of which, he was inevitably questioned about the small matter of him not being licensed to practice law in Vermont. His reply: he’s gonna fix that. And it doesn’t really matter anyway. Digger:

“I should be a member of the Vermont Bar in a matter of months, but I’d also point out that as Attorney General Sorrell well knows, most of the cases are not prosecuted by him, they’re prosecuted by his staff.”

Yeah, well, technically he’s right, kinda sorta. But wouldn’t it be better to have an Attorney General who’s actually got some prosecutorial experience? Even if only so he can effectively advise his staff? And devise policies that adhere to the law?

This Amateur Hour problem was on display in Jack’s rather revolutionary proposal for dealing with out-of-state drug offenders. Vermont Press Bureau:

If residents of New York or Massachusetts – two source states for cocaine, heroin and other opiates, according to law enforcement officials – are convicted of serious drug violations in Vermont, McMullen said, then their home states ought to be responsible for jailing them.



“The idea is if it’s your guy, you should pay for it,” he said.

Now, I’m not a lawyer, but is this legal? If a guy commits a crime in your jurisdiction and is convicted in your courts, can you just ship him off to the state he came from?

Evan if it is legal, I see all sorts of procedural problems. What if state of residence is unclear? What if an offender is from New York but has lived in Vermont for a year or two or five?

And what if other states don’t want to play ball? I’m sure there are far more crimes committed in Vermont by New York or Massachusetts offenders, than there are committed in New York or Massachusetts by Vermonters. Jack’s idea would be a great deal for Vermont, but I don’t know why other states would want any part of it.

Finally, there was a big fat “Trust Me” moment when McMullen addressed Vermont’s legal battle with Vermont Yankee. He’d drop the state’s lawsuit and try to make a deal with Entergy. VPB:

McMullen said he’d work with Shumlin to find out what concessions he wants from the plant’s owners, then go try to extract them.



“Let me go there and cut the best deal,” McMullen said.

First of all, this wasn’t the only time McMullen promised to work with Governor Shumlin. Which would seem to presuppose Shumlin’s re-election. Wonder how Randy Brock feels about that.

Second, if we want an AG who can work with Shumlin, why not a Democrat, hmm?

And finally, and most obviously: do you really trust Jack McMullen to go into a quiet room with Entergy and come out with a good deal for the state?

All in all, it was an underwhelming debut for Six Teats. Nothing as egregious as his debate performance against Fred Tuttle, but for a guy who’s been running for AG at least since May, he still seems to be engaged in active on-the-job training. His good ideas were all cribbed from Democrats, particularly TJ Donovan, and his bad ideas came from his very own brain. Which isn’t what you want to see in a major-party candidate for a high state office.  

Punched up the Freeploid’s website this evening, just to see if anything new was going on.

Check that: “just to see if the Freeploid was aware of anything going on.”

And there, at the top of the page, in the ‘Loid’s  deeply annoying “drop-down-then-scroll-back-up” adspace, was news of another exciting improvement to the ‘Loid’s online offerings: Sports PULSE.

As part of our continuing upgrades to content, the Burlington Free Press has expanded its online sports coverage with the launch of the Sports PULSE to its online Sports section.

Hey, sounds great. Tell me more, O Freeploid.

The latest national sports stories from the professional and college ranks are available on our Sports page in addition to our local report and coverage by the Associated Press.

Ah. “The latest national sports stories” meaning the same wireservice stuff you can already read on numerous popular (and lucrative) sports websites. ESPN.com, SI.com, Yahoo! Sports, CBSSportsline, etc., etc., etc. Not to mention any halfway-competent local sports site, like for instance WEEI.com in Boston.

Sigh. Any other good news?

The page has been created by USA Today Sports.

Ooh, the Blandmasters of Journalism are behind this thing.

In other words, this is another way for the corporate overlords at Gannett to recycle existing content, hoping to wring every last penny out of its ever-dwindling journalistic enterprise.

And this warmed-over rehash of stuff that’s easily accessible elsewhere is supposed to somehow compete with established and well-entrenched online brands that offer the same stuff PLUS a whole lot of their own original content? And is supposed to somehow add value to the Freeploid’s online offerings and entice readers to plunk down 12 bucks a month for full access?

Methinks not.

I hope Jim Folger’s got some better tricks up his sleeve. This one’s a no-hoper from the gitgo.  

No winner was declared last night, but it sure looks like Bill Sorrell has survived TJ Donovan’s primary challenge for the Democratic AG nomination. I have a few reflections on the outcome.

Sorrell should be embarrassed. It’s really stunning that a 15-year incumbent came so close to losing his party primary. Usually, long-term incumbents have to either commit murder or die to lose a primary. Bill Sorrell almost managed it; he had to scratch, claw, and fight — and bring in some outside money — to win the primary by only a few hundred votes.

Sorrell should be checking himself. One might expect to see some introspection on the part of someone who’d just come thisclose to the ignominious end of his political career. Perhaps some apologies, some promises to examine his performance and learn why he lost the support of so many, and how he might do his job better in the future. Instead, in his primary-night speech, we got ear-to-ear grins, a complete dismissal of the Republican candidate, and the next-best thing to a declaration of victory — not for the primary, but for the general election and another two-year term.

Sorrell is a remarkably ungracious winner. His primary-night speech contained not a word about his opponent, directly or otherwise. It did contain a veiled warning to those who dared oppose him:

Others have said to me about primaries that they’re just so bad. people you think are going to be with you aren’t. And when you see people who don’t look you straight in the eye, you know they’re not with you.

But at the same time, there are all these folks who are with you 100% and it means so much to you. And I want you to know that in a fight like this, you find out who your friends are. And I will never, ever forget what you’ve done for me, and what you’re doing for me right now.

He didn’t add the obvious corollary “I found out who my enemies are and I will never, ever forget them,” but the implication is pretty damn clear. No sign of reaching out beyond his circle of true friends, no acknowledgment that he needs to win the trust of those who voted against him.  

The anti-Sorrell folks left some ammo on the shelf. In the months before the vote, I heard some negative things about Sorrell and his record that were never made public. Some were general, some were pretty specific. I didn’t write about those things because my knowledge was completely second-hand.

I kept waiting to see this stuff come to the surface, but most of it never did. I suspect that the anti-Sorrell forces were trying to keep things relatively polite, which is a noble aspiration. But given the fact that Donovan lost so narrowly, I have to wonder if those folks aren’t having some second thoughts about their reticence.  

The Castleton Polling Institute needs to do some work on their sampling techniques. Their pre-primary poll gave Sorrell a 2-1 edge, almost unchanged from the May survey. There was some blowback at the time, some criticism of Castleton’s sampling process. The critics had a point, apparently.

Although I do believe Castelton’s gubernatorial poll is right: Shumlin’s gonna mop the floor with Brock.

So, what lessons did you learn last night?  

By which I refer to those multi-state, multi-million-dollar settlements between state Attorneys General and misbehaving corporations. Bill Sorrell has offered two major reasons for his re-election: Experience, and the millions he’s brought into state coffers by participating in lawsuits against big corporations.

And it’s true; in each of the last two years, Vermont has gained about $40 million from settlements — the bulk of it from the big enchilada of multi-state settlements, the deal with the tobacco industry, which was signed 15 years ago but still brings in about $33 million a year.

But I have two questions about these settlements and how much credit Sorrell deserves.

First, and simplest: How long can he continue to claim credit for something that happened long ago? The tobacco settlement was signed shortly after Sorrell took office. Previously I have questioned whether he could have possibly played a significant role in a complicated deal that had been in the works before he even became AG. Now I question whether he can rightly claim perpetual credit for an action he took 15 years ago. I’m not saying he deserves no credit; I’m just questioning how much he really deserves. (The tobacco money will continue to flow indefinitely as long as sizeable numbers of people continue to smoke. Which, it should be noted, gives the states a perverse incentive NOT to fund anti-smoking programs; if people stopped smoking, they’d stop raking in the bucks.)

Second, and more fundamental: Are all these multi-state, mega-million-dollar settlements actually a good thing? Sure, it gooses the states’ bottom lines, and it does provide some measure of punishment for corporate misdeeds. But rarely does the settlement come close to equaling the profits made through said misdeeds. And the settlements close the door on further prosecution. In effect, the Attorneys General have put a price tag on corporate misbehavior. And that price is often very affordable.  

As a bonus, since the settlements are struck out of court, corporate documents aren’t entered into the public record, and executives escape the necessity of testifying under oath. Confidentiality agreements are often part of the package, which means no one ever sees the evidence, and none of us can make our own judgments on the corporation or the vigilance of public officials.

Since the tobacco deal, state AGs have pursued a number of similar cases, and have often won significant dollars. Usually, the money has not gone to help victims; it’s been rolled straight into state’s general funds. Multistate settlements have become a reliable revenue stream for states, helping them balance budgets without raising taxes or fees. Which is why so many Republican AGs are happy to participate; they’re not normally the most anti-business of folks, but they see this as a win for their states and a manageable loss for corporations.

Furthermore, the people who actually bear the cost of these settlements aren’t the perpetrators — the executives who pursued or approved illegal or unethical acts, and who evade any personal responsibility in these settlements. The costs are borne by shareholders, who suffer reduced profits and stock prices. That’s not just Warren Buffett; that’s any American with stock or mutual fund investments or a retirement plan.

In the short run, these settlements are a win-win all around. Corporations get out from under the threat of prosecution, AGs look like heroes, and governors get a bit of budgetary relief. In the long run, I question whether they’re good public policy. The states and misbehaving corporations have implicity established an unhealthy relationship. States depend on continued corporate malfeasance, and have a financial incentive to loosen regulation and oversight. Corporations have a financial incentive to break the law, because they know that even if they get caught, they can pay a penalty and still come out ahead on the deal.

So I ask Bill Sorrell and his fellow AGs: Are these multistate settlements really a good thing? Are there better ways for state Attorneys General to spend their time and resources?

I wrote this piece after reading an article in The Economist about a settlement between the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) and Standard Chartered, a London-based multinational bank. SC had been accused of widespread financial dealings with Iran, in violation of international sanctions. It settled the case out-of-court by paying a $340 million fine to the state of New York. The illicit dealings with Iran amounted to $250 billion. The fine is undoubtedly a fraction of SC’s total profits on its Iran business. The Economist painted a picture of a morally tainted win-win:

The gratuitous anti-Cuomo swipe aside, I have to agree with The Economist’s portrayal. And it’s not a pretty picture. Granted, this isn’t a multistate settlement, but it’s a good example of the questionable ethics and efficacy of such deals. It made me stop and think. And it made me wonder whether I want my public officials to continue making deals like this.  

Poor, poor Randy Brock. The underfunded underdog will be forced to spend most of next week at the national Republican convention in Tampa, pleading with GOP moneybags for a few crumbs from their table. Meanwhile, Governor Shumlin will be gallivanting around the state, honoring the first anniversary of Tropical Storm Irene. Enjoying, as Brock put it, a “taxpayer-funded junket.”

Yeah, the least exotic “junket” in history.

The Freeploid dutifully reports Brock’s whinge… and in the process, ‘Loid reporter Terri Hallenbeck slyly drops a couple of gems which, like a fine jeweler, I will now display under a spotlight to best reveal their charms.

After providing a few examples of Shumlin’s out-of-state fundraising prowess, Hallenbeck notes that…

Brock’s contributions show a dearth of that out-of-state money Shumlin is seeing. If he hits the jackpot in Tampa at the convention, that might change.

I can see it now: Randy Brock in a convention hallway, desperately pleading with some babyfaced underling for “just a moment of Mr. Koch’s time.”

The problem with Randy’s Tampa daydream is that for the national Republicans and one-percenters, Vermont is a pimple on the ass of America, and they have far better things to do with their money than to waste it on a conservative ideologue taking on a popular incumbent in the bluest of blue states.

After the jump: Randy Brock, apostle of moderation. NOT.

I say “conservative ideologue” because that’s exactly what Randy Brock has acted like since he launched his gubernatorial campaign. Which leads me to the following passage from the Hallenbeckian keyboard:

You might wonder if Brock is worried about how spending time at the Republican National Convention will go over with voters back home where the national Republican scene – including the rise to the prominence of tea party groups – gives some Vermonters the heebee jeebies.

Brock shrugged that off, suggesting he could be a good influence on the national party. “The best way to insure that their side prevails is not to participate,” he said. “I need to be part of that debate.”

Oh please, tell us more, Randy. How exactly do you differ from those nasty far-righters who “give some Vermonters the heebee* jeebies?” After all, you invited one of the nastiest, Maine Governor Paul LePage, to come to Vermont and raise some money for you. On issue after issue, you’ve aligned yourself with the far-right agenda of the national Republicans. Where do you differ? How do we know that, if you were somehow (chuckle) elected Governor (snort), you wouldn’t pull a Scott Walker or Rick Snyder and impose a far-right, Tea Party agenda on Vermont? (Wisconsin’s Walker, you might recall, made no mention of union-busting when he was a candidate, and Michigan’s Snyder presented himself as a relatively moderate alternative to some caveman Republicans in his state’s gubernatorial primary.)

*I’ve always spelled it “heebie,” but I haven’t consulted the AP stylebook.

This is the same Randy Brock who’s spending big wads of campaign cash on Republican “consultants” who’ve helped elect some of the most noxious of Tea Partiers. And the same Randy Brock whose own team includes Darcie Johnston, El Jefe General John McClaughry, and LePage policy architect Tarren Bragdon.  

And this is the same Vermont Republican Party that has made the Rev. Craig Bensen, the Last Man Standing in the “Take Back Vermont” crowd, their delegation chairman to the national convention. I’m sure he’ll loudly represent the views of mainstream Vermonters in “that debate” on the future direction of the Republican Party.

No, Randy, you have not shown the least inclination to be a positive “part of that debate.” Quite the opposite: you have shown yourself to be a far-right panderer of the bleakest sort — throwing away whatever minuscule chance you had to win the Governorship in a consistent and craven effort to cuddle up to Republican reactionaries.

Well, either that, or you’re a Republican reactionary yourself.

Panderer or ideologue: the choice is yours.  

Oh noes! Disaster has befallen our Green Mountain polity!

Bernie Sanders, stout defender of the Common Folk, has revealed himself to be just another pawn of corporate America!

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday joined utility and environmental group leaders to tout the benefits of ”smart” meters, the new generation of digital electric measuring devices designed to save energy and lead to better management of the power grid.

”The bottom line is that smart grid offers real benefits for consumers and the environment,” Sanders said.

Well, that’s it, then. Bernie’s not pure enough to be in the club.

I jest, of course. I’m with Bernie 100% on this. And his support for smart meters ought to give pause to those who fight against them.

It probably won’t, but it should.  

Everybody knows that Howard Dean is all for Attorney General Bill Sorrell’s re-election. Dean has made public appearances with Sorrell, he cast an early ballot with Sorrell, he voiced a campaign ad for Sorrell. No surprise; Dean and Sorrell go way back, and it was Dean who parachuted Sorrell into the AG job way back when. Indeed, Sorrell is by far the most prominent remnant of Dean’s tenure as governor.

Which raises a question. Two, actually.

First, how influential is Dean’s backing? I personally don’t know. It’s been a long time since Dean was an active participant in Vermont politics, having positioned himself almost entirely as a national political figure since his abortive run for President in 2003-04.

So, the quesiton: do people in Vermont care about Dean anymore? I might also ask, did they ever? I didn’t live here during the Dean years, but I do recall that he governed from the center (even more so than Peter Shumlin), often angering liberals and Progressives with his tight-fistedness.

Feel free to answer that question in the Comments below. And now my second question: is Peter Shumlin tacitly endorsing Sorrell’s opponent, TJ Donovan?

I should make it very clear that I have no inside information. I’m simply observing events and interpreting them through my sometimes-befogged spectacles. I shall, however, present my admittedly circumstantial evidence after the jump.

When you do a Google Images search for “Peter Shumlin” and “TJ Donovan,” you realize how often they’ve been in pictures together this spring and summer. Donovan’s almost like Zelig, appearing over and over again in the background at Shumlin pressers. The most notable occurrence was in late July, when Donovan showed up at Shumlin’s presser about “bath salts” in Barre. Which isn’t anywhere near Chittenden County, last I checked.

The explanation, according to vtBuzz, is that Barre Mayor Thom Lauzon (who has endorsed Donovan) invited TJ. Okay, all right; but I’d think that the Governor would have some say over who gets to share a podium with him when the cameras are clicking.

And the Governor certainly didn’t go out of his way to invite the Attorney General to an announcement of a state ban on bath salts. State law, attorney general, hm?

There have been plenty of other photo-ops as well. This one is from a May presser in which Shumlin praised Donovan’s rapid intervention community court program. To be sure, the Guv refused to endorse TJ’s run for higher office, but he did hold a public event with the guy.

And then there’s the Jim Deeghan case. I may be revealing my blissful ignorance of the law, but is it entirely normal for a case involving a state employee accused of defrauding the state to be handled by a county prosecutor? Donovan’s been all over the Deeghan thing. Sorrell? Nowhere to be seen. Hell, even Tom Salmon’s gotten a chunk of the Deeghan pie. But nothing for the Attorney General. I call that curious.

Indeed, I don’t recall a single occasion this year in which Shumlin and Sorrell have been in the same frame. I could be wrong, and probably am; but they certainly haven’t been photographed in nearly as many high-profile situations as Shumlin and Donovan.

Now, I don’t expect anything close to an overt endorsement from Shumlin, not before the primary. And if this diary prompts a reporter to ask Shumlin about the AG’s race, I’m sure he’ll deny that he has any preference at all.

But me, I see quite a bit of circumstantial evidence, and I think Peter Shumlin wants a new AG.

And I think that’ll hold more sway in next week’s primary than any $99,000 ad campaign voiced by our beloved ex-Guv.  

We liberals are supposed to favor social equity. We don’t like the rising level of income inequality between America’s rich and poor. It’s unjust, it causes suffering, and it hamstrings our economy by throwing supply and demand fundamentally out of whack.

But this week’s campaign finance reports, while generally bearing good tidings for liberals and bad news for conservatives, revealed a massive income gap between Democratic haves and have-nots. And to make the situation even worse, the haves are highly unlikely to need their massive (and growing) warchests, while there are a couple of estimable have-nots who could use a helping hand.

The known “have” is Governor Shumlin, who’s rolling in dough while his opponent Randy Brock is spending more than he takes in. The presumed “haves” are Bernie Sanders and Peter Welch; at last report, they had huge bankrolls and they face opponents who are unknown and unfunded.

The worthy “have-nots” are Doug Hoffer and Cassandra Gekas.  

Hoffer is an eminently qualified candidate for Auditor who has the backing of the Dems and the Progs. But he’s fallen behind Republican Vince Illuzzi in the money race. This should be a no-brainer for the Dems; Hoffer actually wants to be Auditor and would be a really good one (plus he had the guts to take on Tom Salmon in 2010, a thoroughly commendable effort), while Illuzzi settled on the Auditor’s race at the last minute, apparently seeing it as his best shot at a steady paycheck. Hoffer should be getting more support from Vermont’s liberal donor class.

With Gekas, I can understand the reluctance to donate. She’s a political unknown challenging the most popular Republican in the state, Lt-Gov Phil Scott. Still, she was apparently recruited by Shumlin or his people, and the Dems ought to get behind her in tangible ways. If they don’t, they will have urged a talented young person to go out on a limb, and then left her to fend for herself.

In a filing-day post, I jokingly suggested that Shumlin should let Gekas rummage around in his sofa cushions for loose change. But really, it doesn’t look like the Governor will need most of that big pile of cash. Nor will Sanders or Welch. So why not turn back a few checks, and tell your donors to support Hoffer and/or Gekas instead?

It’d provide a measure of social justice on the Democratic ticket, which we supposedly believe in. It’d make for a stronger ticket in November. And it’d make for a stronger Democratic government in the next biennium.

 

 have a lot of respect for the folks at VTDigger. Due to the changing finances of mass media, there’s a growing gap between the quantity of serious journalism in Vermont, and the need for such reporting. Digger is doing what it can to fill that gap.

However…

They’re not perfect. And earlier this week, they served up a little clunker entitled

Statewide reform of payroll system won’t deal with fraud

Which sounds like a big story. Due to the apparent fraudulence of a state trooper, questions are being asked about the checks and balances on the payroll system. And the state’s new payroll reform won’t deal with that? Sounds like a problem!

Except, well, it’s not.

The $8.2 million Enterprise Resource Planning project, which has been in the works for two years, will streamline the timesheet system for state workers, as well as upgrade the state’s overall human resources software.

But top state officials say the upgraded system won’t prevent fraud, in spite of concerns raised by a recent Vermont State Police overtime scandal.

Okay, wait wait. The project “has been in the works for two years,” and yet somehow it won’t solve a problem that just arose?

Does Governor Shumlin have a time machine? If not, how could a two-year-old program be expected to address a concern that just arose?  

The payroll upgrade was undertaken because the current system is antiquated and inefficient. The state needs a new one. But a new payroll system can’t be expected to prevent the kind of over-the-top cheating allegedly conducted by Jim Deeghan.

Jim Reardon, commissioner of the Department of Finance and Management, said no system “can be 100 percent foolproof.” He emphasized that primary responsibility for internal controls remains with supervisors, who review and approve timesheets.

As it should be. And if Deeghan did manage to pad his time sheets so outrageously, his supervisor should have noticed. (I do hope the supervisor comes in for his share of responsibility, should the charges against Deeghan hold up in court.)

The story meanders on from there, trying to make chicken salad out of this little pile of chickenshit. And failing.

I can think of two possible explanations for this exercise in journalistic fluffery, and neither are very appealing. First, when you have limited resources and you spend some of them pursuing a story, you’re under a lot of pressure to get a story. Second, there’s a strong temptation to find ways to capitalize on a current controversy that’s got everyone’s attention.

But really, there’s no story here, and no excuse for trying to create one out of whole cloth.