The Vermont Remote Worker Grant program is the latest “incentive” give-away to fall under the critical eye of Vermont’s intrepid state auditor, Doug Hoffer.

Auditor Hoffer has just released an audit report that suggests that the governor and enabling legislature have once again put the cart before the horse, failing to establish meaningful benchmarks and sufficiently detailed parameters to ensure that the program actually gives real value for the investment of tax dollars.

After evaluating the Agency’s “compliance with statutes and guidelines of the program, the report offers a summary of the “compliance and judgment” issues that were identified:

1 The Program used seven percent of its funds ($18,120) to reimburse grantees for security deposits, which are expenses that are also assets temporarily withheld and then returned by landlords if certain conditions are met. The Agency has no mechanism to recover these funds when grantees move and retrieve their deposits.


2 The Agency did not establish guidelines or caps for certain types of reimbursements. For example, one grantee enjoyed a prepaid year of high-speed internet. Another grantee received $5,000 for a 100-yard underground conduit for broadband cables, which adds value to the property and will not be recovered by the State at resale.


3 The Agency reimbursed some grantees for storage of possessions in Vermont covering storage periods prior to grant approval. 


4 The Agency did not verify the actual costs necessary for grantees to perform their jobs or whether such expenses were job-related.  


5 The Agency did not always exercise due diligence when verifying grantee claims. For example, the Agency permitted one grantee to sign as employee and employer, and it approved another grantee with inconsistent employer data.

While an audit report does not make recommendations, it does provide feedback on the existing program that should inform Legislative decisions about changes that might be needed to make it more effective; or if indeed it should be suspended altogether and the funding devoted to a different priority.

Mr. Hoffer’s findings are not encouraging.  It would seem that, urged on by Governor Scott, who has never met a growth incentive he can’t love, and in their haste to counter the narrative of a dwindling and aging Vermont workforce, the program’s framers too quickly seized upon an idea that was attractive on the surface but rather under-baked at its cored. Department of Economic Development Commissioner Joan Goldstein seemed to anticipate problems, early on, and the bill’s co-sponsor, Becca Balint, agreed last year that the program was not really ready for prime-time:

“It’s disappointing we didn’t do a thorough enough job for her to have the information she needs, but I don’t find this alarming,” Balint said. “When you have committees that only meet from January to May, there are going to be details that need to be dealt with and parts of legislation that need to be tweaked.”

Balint added that she believes the committee will be able to get Goldstein the information she needs next year, before anyone submits an application for reimbursement.

“If she feels like she has not gotten enough guidance from us, I believe her,” she said. “It was really uncharted territory. She has tried her utmost best to make sure this can launch successfully.”

As for Goldstein, if she doesn’t get the details she needs in time for the program launch, she said, “we’re going to proceed with the ambiguity, because what other choice do we have but to follow the law?”

As for Goldstein, if she doesn’t get the details she needs in time for the program launch, she said, “we’re going to proceed with the ambiguity, because what other choice do we have but to follow the law?”

…And so, apparently, they did.

This is precisely why input from the auditor’s office is of timely value, even if it does give a less than flattering impression of one of the governor’s pet programs.