Notice how carefully the Freeps front page story on the Agency of Human Services embezzlement skirts the issue of Tom Salmon’s culpability? It is raised and dismissed in barely two sentences late in the article:

The case has triggered debate in the race for state auditor, with challenger Doug Hoffer asking why incumbent Tom Salmon’s office did not catch the alleged five-year scheme.  However, Human Services Secretary Hoffman and DCF Commissioner Steve Dale had closer oversight responsibilities of the division in which Lantagne worked.

But, you well might ask, wasn’t Tom Salmon the state’s elected auditor  for much of the five year period over which the embezzlement took place?  Perhaps other heads should roll as well, but few would argue that the “buck” doesn’t stop in full on the desk of the state auditor.

I listened with interest to a recording of the October 5 VPR debate between Doug Hoffer and incumbent, Tom Salmon.  I really wanted to understand Tom Salmon’s rationale for his office having overlooked this huge discrepancy; but I got nothing.  Not only on the topic of the embezzlement, but on many other questions put to Mr. Salmon, his replies were lost in a sea of incoherent double-speak that seemed to go nowhere.  His contempt for his opponent was, to say the least, thinly-veiled; but he was factually challenged with regard to Mr. Hoffer’s credentials, and had apparently made little effort to inform himself, making Mr. Salmon come off as petty and ineffectual.  He wasn’t even aware of audit reports authored by Mr. Hoffer that are included on the state auditor’s own website! The longer Mr. Salmon spoke in response to most questions, the further he strayed from the point.  In sharp contrast to Mr. Hoffer’s concise and focussed remarks, Mr. Salmon’s were vague and often emotionally charged. In defense of his flip to the Republican party, Mr. Salmon characterized himself as an “original thinker.”

Toward the conclusion of the debate, Mr. Salmon proposed that the office of Auditor might better be filled by appointment; and perhaps for a term of ten years!  To some this might suggest that Mr. Salmon has found the demand for timely accountability to the electorate something of a burden.  It would certainly have been handy not to come up for reelection in the immediate aftermath of what represents one of the most glaring thefts from a state agency that Vermont has ever seen; and to have a term of office sufficiently long to effectively “bury” any embarrassing failures.  When asked if appointment wouldn’t compromise the integrity of the office,  he quickly volunteered that, rather than the governor making the appointment, he envisioned  a “government accountability committee” performing that function.  How this additional layer of bureaucracy would be created he left to the listeners’ imaginations.   When the moderator turned to Doug Hoffer to ask if he agreed with each of Mr. Salmon’s radical suggestions, his reply was an emphatic and repeated “No!”

One is left with the impression that Mr. Hoffer is the man with boots-on-the-ground knowledge and skill, while Mr. Salmon comes off a poor second, having, at best, faintly quixotic pretensions, and at worst, a nasty inclination to duck responsibility.