Norm McAllister may claim that Franklin County residents want him to stay, but I believe  reality is quite to the contrary. GMD reader and occasional contributor, Paula Schramm, a Franklin County resident, sent me a reply she wrote to a letter  that recently appeared in the St. Albans Messenger, and I wanted to share it with our broader Vermont public:

“Esther Fitzgerald asked if Sen.McAllister could receive a fair trial if the Vermont Senate Rules Committee suspends him from the Senate. ( Thurs.,12/17 ) The answer is yes, of course. This happens commonly enough when a teacher, police officer, or other official is suspended while an alleged crime or abuse of power is resolved. Often the person is suspended with pay, as would be the case here….which implies no prejudgement whatsoever.

I’ve already written about my feeling that Norm McAllister should absolutely be presumed innocent of the serious charges against him until he has been able to have his day in court. No question about that.

The Senate has to wrestle with the whole picture : has the behavior he already admits to made him less than able to adequately represent his constituents ? Will the time and energy consumed by being at trial do the same ? Will the effort of expelling him (so that adequate representation be given to Franklin County constituents through appointing them a new Senator for this one session ), actually be so disruptive that the legislative session itself is ruined for all Vermont citizens ? Would the questioning involved in an expulsion hearing jeopardize the fairness of the trial ? Probably, given all the alternatives, the idea of suspension with pay would be the least bad choice that anyone has with current legal options. And, yes, lawmakers : we need more options ! Change the VT Constitution and give citizens the power of recall !

It’s become clear that Sen. McAllister is determined NOT to do the right thing and step down, to give his full attention to the very serious charges that he faces, and to allow someone to be appointed who can provide good representation.

So my gloves are coming off. The victim here is not Sen.McAllister, as he wants us to feel, with his complaint of feeling “kicked in the head” by his fellow Senators over a possible suspension. We , the people of Franklin County are victims, most of us so far patiently uncomplaining, of not being able to have real representation this legislative session. If the suspension goes through, we have only one Senator instead of the two we should have.

AND, if Sen.McAllister manages to stay on, we are stuck with someone representing us who will be spending much of his attention through February and March dealing with a trial. Someone who puts his own needs ahead of his responsibility towards those who elected him and pay him.   Someone who has made some shockingly poor decisions in recent years:

1) as a much older person, with considerable power and influence, in a public position with much responsibility, choosing to have sex with a sixteen-year-old employee of his, behavior which would have gotten him immediately fired had he been a teacher, and for very good reason.

2), choosing to have sex not only with an employee, but also a tenant, who were in positions of vulnerability, in which he had financial power over them.

3), choosing to bring this employee, with whom he’d had sex since she was sixteen, to the State House with him to serve as his intern, to have her room with him, and to continue to have sex with her, but as a secret, not as an open relationship.

There are so many things wrong with this picture ethically that I simply want to point out that it makes me feel nauseous enough not to want to speak with Norm McAllister about my legislative concerns or how, as his constituent, I would like him to vote on things. How can he “represent” me, if I am loathe to approach him because of behavior that he admits to, and makes no apologies for ?

I am certain that many of his constituents feel that same difficulty, including many women, and many parents of young and teenage daughters, along with grandparents of daughters. In other words, a lot of his constituents…..

And for sure I would NOT have voted for him, no matter what his political beliefs, if I had known about his behavior before the election. I’m sure that’s true for many. Norm McAllister says he has constituents that support him, and are considering bringing suit against the Senate if they vote to suspend him.

But he has not acknowledged hearing also from those who have asked him to resign. He has complained about the unfairness of being prejudged because supposedly people always side with ‘the women’. But he hasn’t taken any responsibility for the downright wrongness of actions he already has admitted to.

We, the citizens of Franklin County , shouldn’t have to depend on the Senate trying to figure out how to save their dignity while at the same time protecting our right to adequate representation. Clearly they could use an ethics committee that gives them some guidelines, and they should figure out how to do ” suspension ” and “expulsion”, so that they have a clue if there’s a next time. Meanwhile we need the power to recall a legislator we don’t feel can represent us anymore, and to have a new election…. and that needs a constitutional change.”

The state Auditor’s Office has come up with a pretty good way to address some of the state’s budgetary woes without pinching the poor: restore competitive bidding practices on state contracts so that taxpayers get more value for their money and more Vermont businesses may benefit from state patronage.

Auditor Doug Hoffer has a habit of shining the bright light of performance scrutiny into cobwebbed corners of state bureaucracy where he routinely identifies  inefficiency, waste and cronyism. With his latest report, he may have struck the motherlode: no-bid state contracts.

His report to the Agency of Administration is aptly titled” Sole Source Contracts: Extraordinary Use in Ordinary Times.”

“The high frequency of sole source contracts reviewed for this analysis raises questions about the effectiveness of the State’s contract management,” Auditor Hoffer said. “The State’s longstanding policy to competitively bid for contracts is meant to ensure taxpayers receive the highest values for their contracted dollars and Vermont businesses are afforded an equal opportunity to obtain contracts.”

There are many things about our intimate little state with its small town culture that are very much to the benefit of us all. But when informality in public agencies segues into undisciplined sourcing habits, the cost to taxpayers can be enormous.

After looking at the procurement practices of just five agencies and departments (Agency of Education, Agency of Human Services Central Office, Department of Buildings and General Services, Dept. for Children and Families, and the Department of Vermont Health Access) it was the conclusion of the Auditor’s office that “sole sourcing,” or contracting goods and services on a no-bid basis is, overall, not the exception but rather the rule.

According to contracting guidelines, contracts to supply the state are, as a rule, to be awarded through a competitive bidding process in order to ensure that taxpayers get the best value for their investment.

“Sole sourcing” is to be resorted to only in emergencies or in exceptional circumstances when only one source is qualified to supply the goods or services required by an agency.

To assess how frequently the five agencies and departments employed sole source practices, we took a snapshot by accounting for all contracts that commenced in fiscal year 2015 (FY15). We reviewed a total of 764 contracts for the five agencies, carrying a total value of $343.3 million…Of those contracts, 41% were sole-sourced. That translates to $158 million, or 46% of the total contract value, that was sole-sourced.16

The worst offender of the five agencies studied was the Agency of Education, which “sole sourced” the majority of its contracts, and showed the highest dollar value for its sole-sourced contracts, but all five relied on sole sourced contracts much more than one would expect under the contracting guidelines.
The Auditor’s Office made allowance for extenuating circumstances that, in some cases explained the high volume of sole sourced contracts; but overall, there seems to have been a distinct lack of justification.

Reasons provided by the agencies when required to explain their default to sole sourcing were often highly deficient; even, in the case of DCF practices, described in the report as “Phantom:”

“A ruling issued by the Health Care Finance Administration in 1996 prevents the department from securing Medicaid services by competitive bid,” DCF’s Deputy Commissioner wrote in memos from 2009-2015. “Therefore it is my intention to enter into sole source contracts with the existing providers for a period up to four years.”   A search of past rulings of the federal administration yielded no results that would prevent the State from competitively bidding for these services. We asked DCF for documentation associated with said 1996 ruling, and the department was unable to provide it.   Upon checking with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Auditor’s Office was told:  “Typically, to assure economy and efficiency of provider rates, we allow states to use competitive bidding to subject rates to market forces.”

Claims that contracts were sole sourced due to time constraints appear to have been more often a matter of agencies neglecting to address projects in a timely manner than any legitimate emergency which could justify the practice.
The Auditor’s report stops well-short of implying systemic corruption, but it isn’t difficult to see a parallel between these statewide practices and the similar preferential treatments at the most local level with which many of us are all too familiar: the selectboard member who sells fill to the town at a higher than market price; the cushy administrative job that is suddenly created and filled by a member of a prominent family with no trace of a formal search process. No doubt most GMD readers have their own local tales to tell.

Corruption is the easiest offense to commit and the hardest to discover.

Much of the questionable sourcing practices discussed in the Auditor’s report are probably more a result of poor habits, sloppy management, and the ‘good ol’ boys’ effect than any considered effort to defraud.

The end result is, however, potentially very costly to taxpayers and, once exposed,  embarrassing for the agencies involved.

If the report is received by the agencies as it should be, it will be embraced as their opportunity to deliver better value for all of us…thanks to Hoffer and his team.

It’s December 10, and even though Norm McAllister was arrested for sexual predation at the Statehouse way back in April, he is still free to represent himself as the senior senator for Franklin County, effectively victimizing all of us, his constituents.

Shame on you, Norm McAllister; and shame on those senators who won’t lift a finger to revoke your Senate privileges.

According to Seven Days a significant number of Vermont senators now appear either to be unwilling to expel Norm McAllister based on the public record of his conduct, or say they need “more information.”

Many in that number still seem to be unaware of the difference between Mr. McAllister’s right to a fair trial and his privilege to represent the people of Franklin County within the guidelines of his oath of office. He as much as admitted to being in violation of that oath, which promises to protect his constituents, when he was recorded saying to one of his sexual assault victims,

“I knew I was forcing you to do something you didn’t want to do … I knew that you didn’t really want to do that.”

What additional information could one possibly need in order to conclude that he is in clear violation of his oath?

Now, even some senators who initially said they would vote for his expulsion, including Franklin County’s only other senator, Dustin Degree, are backpedalling:

Sen. Dustin Degree (R-Franklin) was among those who told Gram last summer that he’d vote to expel McAllister, with whom he shares a two-member district. But now that he’s learned how “murky” such a process might be, the St. Albans Republican says his position has “evolved” to undecided.

‘Sounds like weasel words to me. There is nothing ‘evolved’ about failing to protect the vulnerable.

The idea of a “suspension,” pending the outcome of the trial, has been suggested; but even that gets surprisingly little Senate support, according to Seven Days.

Suspension might have more appropriately been applied some eight months ago, immediately following the shocking revelation in the Messenger that States Attorney Jim Hughes had recorded the above statement and worse in telephone conversations between McAllister and two of his victims.

We are no longer talking about grey areas of “he said/she said.” That ship has sailed, and one can only wonder why there is still so much hesitancy  in the Senate about doing anything to defend the interests of the people of Franklin County in general. As things now stand, his constituents are only being dis-served by McAllister; especially the vulnerable female constituents whom McAllister victimized.

Now, a new layer of intrigue has been added to the controversy. Discussions are apparently already underway concerning what to do about McAllister, but the press and public have not been privy to those proceedings.

Seven Days made a standing request last spring to be notified directly of all Rules Committee meetings after the panel met secretly to discuss the creation of an ethics committee.

Once again, no allowance was made for  Mr. McAllisters’ long-suffering constituents who might have appreciated the opportunity to listen in.  Even the press has been rebuffed.

The Senate Rules Committee, which is vetting the various proposals, met last month in the Senate cloakroom to try to find consensus. Leadership notified all 30 senators about the meeting, but not the public nor the press, and did not list it on the legislature’s website.

Secretary of State Jim Condos (D) disagrees with Senate Pro-Tem John Campbell’s (D)defense: that the Senate and House are exempt from Vermont’s open meeting laws.

I’ve heard a lot of concern expressed by senate members about the precedent an expulsion would set, but precious little about how waffling on such an outrageous abuse of elected power, (and of women in particular) betrays the progressive values for which Vermont is known.

No one…absolutely no one, has asked the people of Franklin County whether they are comfortable with a confessed sexual predator claiming to represent them. We have a right to be asked, we have a right to be heard; and we have a right to hear deliberations on this matter of local representation, that currently are being conducted behind closed doors, 64 miles away.  Senate members may have weakened in their resolve to see him gone, but I, and I would guess, the majority of my Franklin County neighbors have not.

All of the secrecy just adds to a suspicion I’ve heard rumored around here, that others at the Statehouse were aware at least of the inappropriate “relationship” between McAllister and his teenaged “intern” and themselves fear exposure in the course of an expulsion process.

Surely Mr. Degree, having teamed closely with McAllister for several years now, should have all the information he could possibly need to say the man has to go.

Scandal feeds on secrecy. There is a sense that Mr. McAllister’s dirty little secrets may belong to a larger culture of questionable ethics at play in Montpelier, and the senators’ reluctance to discipline McAllister or see meaningful consequences attached to electoral misbehavior may come from a place of squalid self-interest.

It’s time to open the windows and let the sun shine in.

Vermont Conservation Voters (on which I proudly serve as a board member)
has just released it’s 2015 Interim Environmental Scorecard for the Legislature, on which all our Senators and House members are evaluated strictly on the basis of votes cast on key issues that came before them this year.

“Vermonters overwhelmingly value clean water, clean energy, and healthy families. We want voters to know if their elected officials are representing their values – or not,” said Lauren Hierl, political director for Vermont Conservation Voters.

After careful consideration, the VCV focussed on just five votes in the House, surrounding three important issues:

H.40 The Revewable Energy Bill (third reading), where VCV was looking for a ‘yes’ vote.

H.40 An Amendment to strip creation of a “Transformation Tier” from the bill.  VCV was looking for a ‘no’ vote on this one.

H. 4 The ban on microbeads, where VCV was looking for a ‘yes’ vote.

H.35 An amendment to strip funding from the Water Quality Bill. VCV was looking for a ‘no.’

H.35 The Water Quality Bill (third reading), where VCV wanted a ‘yes.’
The Senate evaluation looked at:

H.40 The Renewable Energy Bill (third reading); for a ‘yes vote.

H.40 An Amendment on Energy Siting. VCV was looking for a ‘no’ vote on that one.

S.R.70 A Global Warming Resolution acknowledging the threat posed by human influenced climate change and Vermont’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on fossil fuels.

S.139 Which would have stripped effective language from the Toxic-Free Families Act (Act 188). A ‘no’ vote represented the environmental position on that issue.

H.35 The Water Quality Bill (third reading); looking for a ‘yes’ vote.
First, the bouquets:

It is gratifying to see how many (78) House members and Senators (10) have earned a 100% score from the VCV this year, including two representatives from my own home-county of Franklin; Democrat Kathy Keenan of St. Albans and Republican Carolyn Branagan of Swanton.

In fact, only four other Republican reps and no Republican Senators distinguished themselves in this way. The rest were all Democrats and Progressives, too numerous to single out.

And now for the brickbats:

The most noteworthy environmental fail was turned in by gubernatorial hopeful and current Lieutenant Governor Phil Scott, who stepped into the breach to cast the deciding vote to strip language from a health care bill that would have “improved the process
for regulating the use of toxic chemicals in children’s products.” This family unfriendly vote earned him a special mention on the VCV’s “Environmental Laggards” list.

Others on this list were the twelve Representatives and five Senators who each earned an environmental score of 20% or less from their votes. Only one Democrat appears on that list, Senator John Rogers of Essex/Orleans, who came in at 20% and whose lifetime score is barely better at 40%.

I take particular note that while my St. Albans representative, Corey Parent (R) supported the Water Quality Bill in theory, he voted to strip away the funding necessary to achieve its objectives; as did Eileen Dickinson (R) of St. Albans Town.

Our St. Albans Bay is ground zero for the Lake clean-up urgency, so their votes seem particularly ill-advised under the circumstances.

There is a whole lot of valuable information about your representatives to be gleaned from the VCV Scorecard; so I urge you to download and read it; then keep it in mind the next time they ask for your vote.

The headline gets barely a blink, it’s become so commonplace. Maybe it gets a little more attention because it happened at Planned Parenthood; but we’ll be over it just as soon as the next ISIS soundbite bypasses America’s frontal lobe and goes straight to its amygdala.

Who knows why it happened?

The shooter believed heavily altered videos of PP ‘wrongdoing’…

He believed he was smiting the wicked, because ‘all lives matter’…

He had a personal ax to grind with someone who done him wrong…

He was compensating for the lack in his tackle, or.…

He just doesn’t like Fridays?

Who cares?

It happened because it could.

It’s odd how a slim majority of Americans are so utterly terrified by atrocities committed oceans away from them, that they will at least consider abandoning key provisions of the Bill of Rights and centuries of fundamental principles surrounding it; yet, the Second Amendment is not just upheld by them, but expanded, both in scope and rigor, in ways never imagined by the Founding Fathers.

All of those history lessons about the Fall of the Roman Empire? Take a closer look: this is what decadence looks like.

Budding fascists used to be shown the door at their first outrageous suggestion, but Donald Trump, who is both pig ignorant and diabolically crafty, has been able to parlay his xenophobic stream of consciousness and a boatload of television exposure so that he is now the presumptive Republican nominee for president.

His appeal? Pure unbridled selfishness run amok.  His partisans don’t care who suffers, just so long as they get theirs.

The politician’s promise used to be “ a chicken in every pot;” now its a gun in every hand.

Smith and Wesson is over the moon.

In a time when good news seems all too rare, Vermont has just taken a giant step forward toward protecting children from toxic chemical exposure.

The Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules has approved an important rule puts into place the effective regulation intended under the Toxic-Free Families Act (Act 188) which was enacted in 2014.

Under the new rule, manufacturers of goods marketed to children under 12 will be required to reveal if their products contain any of the sixty-six identified chemicals of “high concern” that were named in Act 188. Disclosure of this information will allow parents to make informed decisions about the products they choose for their families.

According to Lauren Hierl, political director of Vermont Conservation Voters:“The rule approved today is a huge win for Vermont’s children. We will finally know which products contain chemicals linked to cancer, asthma, birth defects, and more. As a parent, I’m excited to know that I’ll be able to avoid exposing my children to toxic chemicals in the products I’m choosing to bring into my home. I thank the Department of Health for proposing, and legislators for upholding, this important rule.”

To which Falko Schilling, consumer and environmental advocate at Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) added:

“For too long the chemical and toy industries have decided which chemicals our children are exposed to, and today they were fighting to continue hiding what’s in products on our store shelves. Vermont chose our children’s health over corporate profits, and our state is now leading the way in letting consumers make informed decisions and help people avoid children’s products with harmful chemicals.”

It’s the least we can do.

Note: I am proud to serve as a member of the Board of Vermont Conservation Voters.