I love this story. It's been around, but I happened to catch it on NPR last night.

It seems that national Republicans are worried that they're losing their appeal to younger voters. As the head of the national collegiate Republicans said on the air yesterday, if the voting age had been thirty, Romney would be president today.

So they did a study to find out what their problem is with young voters, and they came up with an answer that should make regular readers of Green Mountain Daily very, very happy.

 And on the whole, young Republican voters seem to agree the party needs to change its image.

Yes, that's right.  The way they understand the problem, the Republican Party has an image problem. As NPR reporter Audie Cornish points out, “in focus group surveys, young, winnable Obama voters, they used the words like close-minded, racist, rigid and old fashioned when you did word association with Republican Party.”

 And the problem is what? That's right, image. Nothing to do with the positions of the Republican Party, and everything to do with messaging.

Of course, the problem is way more than image. It's not a matter of whether they should talk about “big government” when they are attacking programs that help people, it's really a matter of attacking the programs that help people. For instance, their platform calls for repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and they've voted to repeal it thirty-seven times. Meanwhile, millions of young adults have health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act, and millions are able to get contraception because of that same act.

 But you know what? That's fine with me, and it should be fine with you, too. Because as long as they keep lying to themselves about why the can't get any traction with young voters they're still going to be unable to get traction with young voters, and that's good for all of us.

Well, the inevitable has happened, per VTDigger:

Both sides of Shumlin-Dodge land deal lawyer up

And by “both sides…lawyer up”, we mean Governor Shumlin has hired one of the most prominent attorneys in Vermont, while Jeremy Dodge is trolling the far quieter waters of Vermont Legal Aid.

So, (1) technically, only one side has “lawyered up,” and (2) sounds like a fair fight to me. I’m sure Legal Aid will do a bang-up job against M. Jerome Diamond, who served three terms as state Attorney General (1975-81), was once the Democratic candidate for Governor, and is a founding partner in the law firm of Diamond & Robinson, where his client list has included “General Motors, Bristol-Myers Squibb, PhRMA, LexisNexis, Dish TV, and Orbitz,” according to his law firm’s website.

(He also touts his “strong relationships with state Attorneys General across the country,” which makes me wonder if he had anything to do with BIll Sorrell’s 2012 pre-primary grubstake. But that’s purely irresponsible speculation on my part. We now return to our story.)  

And now that Shumin’s hired a lawyer, he’s officially clammed up regarding the Dodge transaction. After all, pending court matter, would be improper to comment, harrumph harrumph. But his attorney has continued one of the less endearing aspects of this dispute: public disparagement of Jeremy Dodge.

“I’m expecting that Jerry and maybe a member of his family would meet with counsel shortly and select a counsel,” [Diamond] said. “And hopefully, if he remembers to pass my contact information along, that maybe I will get a call.”

Mmm-hmm. Attack the reliability of your opponent, and call him by his nickname. This is of a pattern with comments made by Shumlin before he lawyered up.  And I would suggest, now that this matter is becoming a formal legal proceeding, that such comments are no longer appropriate. If they ever were.

Just for the record, though, let’s review a sample of the Governor’s on-the-record descriptions of his “friendly neighbor,” as he called Dodge in his interview with the Freeploid.  

VTDigger:

Now, listen, this is a person who has a long criminal record. He is a violent offender. He has done horrendous things to innocent people.

Freeploid:

… I recognized that I was dealing with a person who had done some really despicable things to people… When I came onto the scene , it wasn’t just his property taxes, there was a whole menu of back bills, liens against the property, child support payments, a list of challenges a mile long…

…We’re dealing with someone who’s got a criminal record as long as my arm. As I mentioned, he’s done some really despicable things in his lifetime…

This is a violent offender who has done awful things to people.

Mitchell Family Organ:

“Here’s the thing about Dodge – when he’s sober and he’s not on drugs, there’s a lot to appreciate and respect about Jeremy Dodge,” Shumlin said. “When he is on drugs and he is not sober, he’s one of the most despicable human beings that you can deal with, according to what I’ve been told.”

With “friendly neighbors” like this, who needs enemies?

You know, if the Governor is really concerned about helping Jeremy Dodge get a fresh start, then he really ought to stop with the casual mudslinging. And he should tell his lawyer to do the same.

Two more notes. The VTDigger story says nothing about Shumlin’s previous offer to pay for Dodge’s legal counsel. For all I know, Dodge may well have rejected the offer. But its complete absence is curious.

Second, the terms of the dispute have hardened. Dodge wants to keep hold of the family homestead — which, despite Shumlin’s assertions to the contrary, he probably could if he received the tax relief he’s entitled to. Shumlin is willing to renegotiate terms, but he’s not willing to void the deal. In fact, he flatly told the Freeploid “I own the property.”

And my mind, unbidden, can’t help but recall the nasty things the Governor has said about his friendly neighbor. His express intent was to emphasize his charitable nature — helping a real down-and-outer, which nobody else was willing to do.

But when I look at all those comments together, I see another message from Our Man of the People: Would you want this guy living next door to you?

Maybe I’m being way too cynical. But the Governor, by his own comments and actions, has left the door open to cynical interpretations.  

This actually happened a while ago, but I didn’t notice it until Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz picked it up in his most recent “Winners & Losers” post.

Remember a couple of weeks ago, when Gov. Shumlin tried to quash the Jeremy Dodge land deal story by holding a series of one-on-one interviews with selected members of the State House media? You know, tell his side of the story, put on a little charm offensive?

Well, one of those interviews was with the Freeploid’s Terri Hallenbeck. And it didn’t start out well.

Gov. Peter Shumlin: “You’re going to video this? Oh, (expletive). We don’t want that. No, we’re not doing that.”

The “expletive” is left to our imagination. My first thought was “f*ck me,” but I eventually settled on the classic “shit.” The colloquy continues…

Burlington Free Press: “What do you mean we’re not doing that?”

PS: “We won’t do it. We’re not going to do that. Make up your mind. You want print, we’ll give it to you. We’re not doing video. Sorry to be rough, but you guys didn’t tell us. If you’d asked me I would have said no.”

“We’re not doing video” except…

BFP: “Are you not doing interviews with TV on this?”

PS: “Different kind of interview. Little teenie sound bites we give them, then we send them out the door. We want to have a conversation with you that’s not on video.” (Later, it would become apparent that WCAX-TV had videotaped a 20-minute interview.)

Yeah, that’s how you conduct a take-back-the-story campaign, and maintain good relations with your state’s biggest newspaper: reject a reasonable request for no stated reason, and lie to ’em in the process.  

So why no video for the Freeploid? I mean, they’re a newspaper, but like all media, they’re trying to multi-platform whenever possible. Video’s part of their toolkit.

And it can’t be the fact that he was in casual dress. Because he’s apparently quite fond of the shirt he wore that Friday, as pictured in the Freeploid; it also appears in the picture of Shumlin used by the Democratic Governors Association, shown nearby. (I’d show you the ‘Loid’s photo, except they jealously guard their copyright. But believe me, it’s the same shirt. Thrifty Vermonter, don’t ya know.)

Funny thing is, after being weaseled by the Governor, the Freeploid did him a great big favor by slow-playing his expletive-laced rejection. Hallenbeck didn’t mention it at all in her article on the Shumlin interview, published on May 25. Then, a few days later, the ‘Loid decided to post the full transcript of the interview online, expurgated expletive and all.

But they did nothing to call attention to Shumlin’s ungraciousness. The online post is simply entitled “The full Shumlin land deal interview.” And the ‘Loid didn’t put it in print — only online. Paul Heintz was apparently the first member of the media to notice the interview’s incendiary opening.

So, stupid move by the Governor, for no good reason as far as I can tell. He could have gotten hammered a lot harder for it, if the Freeploid had made a bigger splash. But hey, that’s what blogs are for.  

Did I laugh when I learned that the Franklin County Chamber of Commerce was hosting a presentation on “How to Survive Walmart” Thursday night!  

Not being a Chamber kind of a gal, I had to wait for Michelle Monroe’s account  of the soiree to appear in the Weekend Messenger; but I knew it had hit home when a local hospitality business owner hailed me on my front lawn and launched into the need for downtown retailers to stay open late.

She assured me there would be no problem competing with the Walmart if they just do that one teenie thing.

I replied that perhaps that would be economically feasible now that the City has begun investing heavily in sidewalk-scaping to encourage foot traffic downtown, but pointed out that the cost of staffing, heating and lighting a shop after five PM must somehow be offset by sales during that longer work day.  She agreed and dropped the subject.

The doors of our very own St. Albans Walmart are projected to open barely four months from now.  Interesting time to consider its “survivability.”

Back ten years ago, when the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth, of which I am a charter member, naively offered to host a presentation or panel discussion on the potential impacts of a Walmart locating in St. Albans Town for the Chamber, we were politely put off.  It took us a while to realize that they weren’t interested in hearing from anyone who might rain on their parade, but eventually we got the message.

Over the intervening years we have been told by the powers that be, over and over again, that a Walmart in the Town could only have a positive effect on downtown retail.  

Surely all kinds of new customers will flock to the City streets after visiting that novel and amazing new retail option located conveniently and immediately, right  at the highway exit!

These people will have plenty of cash in their pockets and downtown retailers have only to divine what they can sell that Walmart doesn’t already sell as cheaply as possible!  What could be so hard about that?

Oh, yes; and downtown retailers will have to keep their shops staffed and powered into the night on the off-chance that a few sated discount shoppers will feel the need to drop some serious cash downtown.

Sounds like a winning formula to me!

And to make the pitch to local Chamber members, the FCCC brought in the poster girl for downtown success in the face of Walmart:  Ruth Taylor of Littleton, New Hampshire.  Ms. Taylor is routinely asked to do similar presentations all over  because things seem to have worked out just fine in Littleton…but only in Littleton.

Retail in surrounding communities has simply dried up and blown away.  

That’s because those surrounding communities, like St. Johnsbury, Vermont, don’t have the secret ingredient, which is money, lots and lots of money.  

The money comes from various sources; donations, state funded downtown revitalization programs etc.  Little of the money appears to stem directly from Walmart, but rather from the threat of its impact, which serves to prime the pump and unlatch the coffers.

The money goes to things like streetscaping, gentrification, open-air events, etc.  It is not made entirely clear whether the primary retail visitors downtown are routinely coming to Littleton to shop at Walmart, then progressing downtown; or visiting downtown Littleton for its attractions, then stopping at Walmart as they leave town.  Put simply, is Walmart the draw or just the bonus feature?

Be that as it may, Littleton does derive some property tax income from the fact that Walmart is operating on their soil.

In this important way, St. Albans’ situation differs markedly from that of Littleton.  The City of St. Albans, where the traditional downtown is located,  will have no claim to tax generated by the St. Albans Walmart, because all those monies go to the Town of St. Albans, which has absolutely no interest in sharing.

The City has some equivalent funding sources right now because they have been awarded a TIF district and got a little chump change from developer Jeff Davis in exchange for withdrawing their appeal of his Walmart permit.  

That is, however, a finite situation, so I am glad to see that they are striking while the iron is hot.  But there are no guarantees for the future if Walmart dampens the anticipated property value boosts from the TIF.   And this is a very real possibility that has played out in many locations across America.

In fact, even the Town of St. Albans seems to be questioning how profitable the location of Walmart in their community will be, once the cost of infrastructure maintenance and policing is taken into account.  The Town Selectboard has already attempted to get permission from Town voters to impose a 1% local sales tax in order to offset anticipated shortfalls.  

The voters turned them down; but I am told that the local sales tax isn’t necessarily dead because, in the same election, the voters accepted a charter proposed by the Selectboard.  If my information is correct, the charter gives the Selectboard the privilege of imposing a local sales tax without returning to the voters for permission to do so.

So that’s bound to get interesting…

Even if, by some miracle, the Littleton model can be successfully duplicated in St. Albans City, the remaining towns in Franklin County seem destined to become retail deserts.

Is Walmart in St. Albans “survivable?”  I suppose that depends on your definition of the word.

Howard Shaffer came out with another of his dewey-eyed defenses of Vermont Yankee a few days ago in a letter to the editor. We know the line of patter practically by heart now: “…safe…clean…cheap…blah-blah-blah.”

The trouble is, the same people who read his op-ed very likely  also read the May 24th Free Press, which contained a hair-raising account of the struggle in Japan to contain the radiation at Fukushima and to keep the crippled reactors cool…(you know, so as to avoid a meltdown?)…as well as news of efforts to pressure the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to finally deliver on its 30 year promise to do something about nuclear waste storage.

And there has been no shortage of bad news from failures at aging reactors all over the country this year.

Taken altogether, it doesn’t add up to a safe or clean picture of nuclear energy; and cheap, we have learned, it is not.  Even Wall Street is abandoning ship on nuclear investment.

Meanwhile, Fairewinds Associates has a very compelling new video uploaded on their site, featuring Margaret Harrington in conversation with Arnie Gundersen and two Japanese women, journalist Chihio Kaneka and Fukushima resident Chikako Nishiyama, who share first-hand experiences of the aftermath of the 2011 disaster there.  

Through Ms. Kaneka, who acts as her interpreter, Ms. Nishiyama,  a Kawauchi city councilwoman, describes how due to a misunderstanding of  the way radiation plumes distribute themselves, the people of her village were told to evacuate to another location which was actually significantly more exposed to radiation than was the village they left behind.  

From the two women’s account, we get a sense of the chaos and misinformation that further  complicated an already very dangerous situation.

Moving forward to the present and the ongoing effort to simply contain the simmering stew of Fukushima, it is apparently becoming more and more difficult to staff the endless shifts of workers extending far into the forseeable future because exposure levels are rising too quickly.  It sounds like no one really knows  what the endgame will be, because it is just barely possible to keep a lid on crisis as things now stand.

It is remarkable to me that this situation gets so little rise from the public at large.  

The worldwide industry is  adept at message control and has such a long and uniquely intimate history with government “regulators;”  and none of us ever wants to believe the worst will happen to us; so we buy the pretty talk from people like Howard Shaffer,  we trust officials to protect us, and we make ourselves satisfied with half-truths and half-answers to difficult questions.

One of Mr. Shaffer’s principle arguments for the economic value of VY, is that 75% of energy generated in Vermont comes from Vermont Yankee.  Of course he neatly avoids discussing the fact that Vermont currently buys none of its power from the aging facility.  So its economic value to Vermont is highly questionable, especially since there is a growing sense that Entergy cannot make good on its decommissioning commitments when the time comes; and we will most likely be facing a cost for clean-up that will cancel out any cost benefit the state has enjoyed from the heavily subsidized location of VY on our soil.

Mr. Shaffer’s valentines to VY only serve to remind us that a festering carbuncle continues to lodge on Vermont’s border, from which we derive little benefit but must tolerate considerable risk.  

From Ms. Nishiyama and Ms. Kaneka we get a better idea of just what the “worst case” scenario might look like.

“Oh laugh, Curtin, old boy. It’s a great joke played on us by the Lord, or fate, or nature, whatever you prefer. But whoever or whatever played it certainly had a sense of humor. Ha! The gold has gone back to where we found it! This is worth ten months of suffering and labor, this joke is!”

                     — The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Today’s cosmic joke is on a pair of Vermont Republicans, locked in battle over a disputed debt from a doomed campaign. But unlike Curtin and the old coot, these guys ain’t laughin’ — they’re headed to the Big Dry Empty of civil court. Trial is scheduled to begin on Monday, June 3; bring your popcorn.

In one corner: Jeff Bartley, cromulent political functionary and current chair of the Chittenden County Republican Party. Mr. Bartley is a prime example of a certain type of modern Republican: the post-collegiate ideologue who somehow latches onto one political job after another in spite of a long track record of failure. (See also: Corry Bliss, Jim Barnett.)

In the other corner: the campaign organization of Len Britton, Taftsville businessman and hapless challenger to Sen. Patrick Leahy in the 2010 election. As you may recall, Britton barely managed to crack 30% of the vote in losing to St. Patrick by a better than 2-to-1 margin. Britton’s campaign accumulated a war chest of barely $200,000, while Leahy spent 14 times that amount.

Bartley was the captain of that particular Titanic. And he considers himself underpaid.

But here’s the best part of this embarrassment: Jeff Bartley originally filed his lawsuit on October 27, 2010 — five days before Election Day. He had, by that point, left the campaign (perhaps because he wasn’t getting paid), but still — a Republican activist who’s now a Republican official shanking a top Republican candidate in the closing days of a campaign?

The capper: On that same day, Bartley filed an affidavit with the court seeking immediate payment on the grounds that Britton was “a likely unsuccessful candidate for U.S. Senate” and was likely to dissolve his campaign and stash any leftover funds to avoid his debts.

Bartley — who’s now in an influential party position — throws his own party’s candidate under the bus just before the election.

That’s just shameful.

After the jump: more details on the case.  

The documents in Bartley Consulting LLC v. Len Britton for Vermont LLC reveal a comedy of errors on both sides. To start with, Britton’s first campaign manager was one Dan Riley. During Riley’s tenure, in November 2009, Bartley was hired as Deputy Campaign Manager.

In April 2010, Britton and Riley parted ways and, according to a Bartley affidavit, “Len Britton for Vermont, LLC verbally asked me to… take on the position of campaign manager.” Remember that “verbally” part; it’s crucial to the case. The same affidavit says Bartley’s tenure as campaign manager continued “through September 2010”.

At this point, I should mention that the Britton campaign also owes a substantial amount of money to Riley.  According to its own Federal Election Commission filings, the unpaid balance to Riley is $16,577. You may well take this as evidence that Bartley’s claims are true, and that Britton is a welsher. I wouldn’t argue with that interpretation.

Britton’s defense rests on that word “verbally.” Because Jeff Bartley, campaign “expert”, has been unable to produce a signed contract for his services as campaign manager. That’s left the door open for Britton to assert that there never was a contract, and hence Britton is not legally bound to pay.

In the absence of a contract, Bartley’s complaint relies on the Britton campaign’s FEC filings, which list an obligation to Bartley Consulting to the tune of $31,072.67 as well as the $16,577 debt to Riley.

Britton’s rejoinder comes by way of his campaign treasurer, Charles Taylor. He claims that the FEC filings don’t prove a thing. And how does he explain that? In a court affidavit, Taylor says he was unsure about how to list a disputed debt on the FEC form, so he discussed it with an FEC official:

I was told that, in essence, disputation notwithstanding, Defendant was nevertheless required to report the amount of monies claimed due by Plaintiff.

This is another pesky “verbal” thing. As far as can be determined from court records, Taylor has no written documentation of the FEC’s alleged stance.

Yeesh. Talk about the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.

Let’s sum up this laughable situation. We have a guy who served as a campaign manager for six months without a written contract. And who had no discernible positive effect on his candidate’s chances. We have a candidate who allegedly owes money to not one, but two former campaign managers, both of whom left in mid-campaign. And nobody in the case kept proper written records.

We also have a legal dispute that’s limped along since October 2010 with no resolution, an open festering sore on the Vermont Republican Party. The principals are a top Republican official and a former statewide candidate who, even if he never runs for office again, ought to be a reliable source of funds for the VTGOP. But if I were Len Britton, I wouldn’t be getting out my checkbook on behalf of a party that appointed Jeff Bartley to an influential post. Bartley being, after all, his antagonist in a two-and-a-half-year-long legal battle. Not to mention the guy who piloted Britton’s campaign into an iceberg.

Ladies and gentlemen, your Vermont Republican Party.  

UK Prime Minister David Cameron is hosting the latest G8 summit this June in County Fermanagh Northern Ireland. As part of the UK, this region of Northern Ireland is suffering 24% youth unemployment and other “benefits” of Cameron’s strict austerity policies.  

The G8 meets regularly to cooperate and coordinate policies for their mutual benefit. Together the G8 nations are the world’s wealthiest and compromise 50.1% of 2012 global nominal GDP (market value of all final goods and services from a nation in a given year).

However this area of Northern Ireland is looking a little too run down for the G8 leaders sensibilities. So close to $500,000 is being spent on propping up the scenery as if it were a movie set.

Gum is being scraped off sidewalks. Roads will be freshly paved to ensure a smooth ride for convoys of world leaders. Virtual Potemkin villages are springing up on the road to the Lough Erne Resort, where heads of state will gather to discuss tax evasion and reforms, food security, trade deals and the crisis in Syria.

The fluff-up will include pasting life-sized photographs of well stocked stores over closed shops and storefronts. Irish Times reporter Dan Keenan told PRI’s the World:

What they’ve done is they have filled the shop front window with a picture of what was the business before it went bankrupt or closed. In other words,grocery shops, butcher shops, pharmacies, you name it, they have placed large photographs in the windows that if you were driving past and glanced out the window, it would look as if this was a thriving business.

[…] It’s nothing of the sort. That door has been locked shut for well over a year because that particular business went bust this time last year, and that is an image to make it look as if everything is normal in the town and in the county, but unfortunately it’s not.

The G8 leaders will huddle together in a freshly painted town with false storefronts to plan trade deals, discuss tax evasion and reforms. The leaders of the World’s wealthiest nations may not realize it but they are getting a grand bargain on this latest attempt at reality evasion. In 2010 at a G8 summit in Canada the price tag for a false lake made especially for the event was $2 million dollars. However the security to protect the leaders and staff from real world threats in 2013 will reportedly cost $78 million.

Yes, friends, it’s time once again for the comedy stylings of Maine Governor Paul LePage (R-Teabag), last seen in these parts holding fundraisers for Randy Brock’s hopeless, hapless campaign for Governor.

This time, LePage is (a) completely misconstruing the First Amendment, and (b) implying a need for an armed assault on the Maine State House. Take it away, Portland Press-Herald…

Gov. Paul LePage is still upset about being silenced during a recent meeting of the Legislature’s budget writing committee, calling it a “dangerous precedent when we can’t let Americans speak.”

Before we go on, let’s take note of the fact that LePage is “still upset” over something that happened on May 19 — ten frickin’ days ago. That’s when he went to a meeting of a Senate committee and, toward the end of the session, asked for the opportunity to address the panel. The committee chair, a Democrat, said no. Which incensed LePage, not a noted Constitutional scholar.

Asked why the issue is so important, the governor replied, “It’s freedom of speech. You folks should understand that better than I. It is the First Amendment, then there is the Second and I love ’em both.”

Uh… I don’t know how to break this to you, sir, but that’s NOT the First Amendment.

After the jump: GUNS! The answer to every question.

The First Amendment protects the general right to free speech — it says nothing about your right to speak in a particular time and place. If free-speech rights extended to legislative committees, I daresay their sessions would last a hell of a lot longer.

And LePage’s remedy for this unAmerican breach?

He later added, “The minute we start stifling our speech, we might as well go home, roll up our sleeves and get our guns out.”

Nice. That oughta liven up those dull, dreary meetings.

Oh, and one more thing about LePage and the First Amendment: He recently issued an order that he — and only he — will speak to legislative committees on behalf of his Administration. No department heads or other officials will be allowed to give testimony.

Y’know, I can’t imagine why LePage’s Vermont visit didn’t attract legions of moderate voters to the Brock banner.  

VPR’s Bob Kinzel recently did a short news piece on Vermont tax reform. It was a follow up on Speaker Smith and Governor Shumlin’s previously announced efforts to work on solving their disagreements on tax reform over the summer.  Kinzel says:

The two sides do agree on one thing. To determine a person’s tax burden, they want to shift from using an individual’s “taxable income,” to what’s known as “adjusted gross income.” This number is larger because it comes before applying a series of deductions.  

If you use this “adjusted gross” number, and most states do, you can lower the tax rate without changing a person’s tax burden.[added emphasis]

What is so often called a burden was once known as our common shared tax obligation. No taxes are fun to pay but we all know at one level these obligations support public services-roads schools, fire and police that benefit everyone-the common good.

But faced with a choice of using the term tax obligation or tax burden VPR’s Kinzel opted for calling it a burden. So the loaded term tax burden supplants tax bill or tax obligation even on Vermont Public Radio.  

Now VPR certainly is not part of a government, and its funding is voluntary, not mandatory. But what if, for fun, VPR’s fund raising terms were forced to reflect Kinzel’s preferred loaded language. Making a onetime gift of any amount would become a onetime pledge burden to VPR. Sustaining VPR members who pay monthly by credit card, so important to funding, would be aghast to find themselves under a sustaining member burden.  

Expanding on this concept might hit VPR’s endowment hard. If the estate tax can so easily morph into something called a “death tax” what might VPR’s subtle funding suggestion; “remember VPR in your will” become ? Updated it might be recast as a death pledge – “when creating your will don’t forget the possibility of making a VPR death pledge”  

I could even imagine calls coming in from loyal listeners begging for pledge relief. People who would normally contribute happily would think twice about taking on an onerous pledge burden – even for that spiffy travel coffee mug gift or bumper sticker.  

Vermont’s Commissioner of Financial Regulation, Susan Donegan, should expect a phone call from The Big Cheese sometime soon. The subject: her recent, and extremely decisive, rejection of the Vermont Health CO-OP’s bid for a certificate of public good.

For those just joining us, Donegan laid the smackdown on the VHC last week, ruling that its application fell substantially short in its financial outlook and management structure. Her decision was a huge setback for the would-be health insurer.

Well, today VHC’s top officials held a meeting with the media to tell their side of the story. It’s a pretty incredible situation; the two competing stories from VHC and Donegan could not be more different, and I don’t know who to believe.

I’ll post a more detailed diary later today or tomorrow, but for now I wanted to pass along the biggest new development from today’s presser: VHC has asked Governor Shumlin to seek reconsideration of the decision, and Shumlin has promised to take that step. Should be an interesting conversation, with Shumlin urging his functionary to reopen a case she considers closed. Emphatically. With a bang. “This is a final order from the Commissioner,” Donegan told WDEV’s Mark Johnson on Friday.

But the CO-OP has a fair bit of clout in the corner office. A former top Administration official, Christine Oliver, is CEO of the company. Shumlin was on hand at last fall’s official kickoff for VHC, and gave the venture his hearty endorsement.

“We reached out to the Governor,” said CO-OP Board Chairman Mitch Fleischer. “We met with him Monday afternoon. He’d been a proponent of the CO-OP, and he’d like to see another option [in the new health care exchange].”

VHC planned to offer coverage in the exchange, which launches on January 1, 2014, but it cannot do so without a Certificate of Public Good. If Donegan refuses her boss’ entreaties, the CO-OP’s only recourse is an appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court, which appears unlikely to succeed.

Again, I’ll have more on this story in the near future.