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.