( – promoted by odum)

So the University of Vermont has concluded that “no laws or university policies were violated” by Rachael Kahn-Fogel’s relationship with Associate VP Michael Schultz. It did find that the relationship damaged morale in the development office, and ran counter to the institution’s “guidelines and values.” But nothing more. Freshly-ex-President Dan Fogel issued a statement saying “It is good to have reached closure on this unfortunate matter.” Yep, nothing to see here. Let’s all move on, folks.

Just a suspiciously lumpy rug, and a well-used broom nearby. Let’s examine the lumps, shall we?

— Well, sure, the relationship didn’t violate any University policies. There weren’t any policies covering the situation, as UVM Board President Robert Cioffi acknowledged.

— In addition to Fogel’s own expedited departure and enriched severance package, Michael Schultz has also made a quick exit. And he gets a severance deal equivalent to Fogel’s: a year and a half’s salary ($155K/year) and other benefits. According to the Burlington Free Press, Cioffi said that the Schultz deal averts possible litigation. You betcha.

— The board reviewed some $84,800 in possibly questionable expenses charged to UVM, and concluded that a mere $151 “exceeded reasonable thresholds.” Fogel has repaid that money. Is it just me that thinks the $151 is a rather suspiciously minuscule amount? Very specific, very small, but quantified — seemingly designed to imply a thorough, painstaking review.

— But what of the unquantifiable costs to the institution? UVM was going through a period of expansion and fundraising, and some painful budget cuts. At the same time, its development office was in significant disarray. From the Chronicle of Higher Education:

Ms. Kahn-Fogel served as a volunteer fund raiser for the university, and her ill-defined role contributed to problems within the development office, the review found. The report notes, for instance, that staffing decisions in the development office were made based on the Fogels’ preferences and comfort levels with certain individuals rather than their qualifications. Those favored by the family were “perceived to be protected” and promoted within the institution, the review found.

“This environment negatively affected morale in the development office and created ongoing distractions from the pursuit of the fund-raising objectives of the university,” the report says.

Interesting that “the Fogels” are cited for imposing their preferences, not just Kahn-Fogel.

We’ll never know how badly UVM’s fundraising was hampered by these shenanigans. And here’s where the whole fiasco bothers me the most.  

This situation was allowed to fester for years, undermining morale and causing staff turnover in one of UVM’s most important offices. We don’t know what, if anything, was done to try to rein in Kahn-Fogel. Or to stop the Fogels from meddling in development office staffing decisions. As far as I can tell, damn little was done until the whole thing was brought to light a couple months ago by Shay Totten in Seven Days.

I’ve written before about the “grandfather’s lightbulb” phenomenon all too prevalent in Vermont institutions and businesses, large and small. In short, it’s a tendency to ignore problems or inefficiencies (or even illegalities) for no good reason — just, well, we’ve always done it this way.

Robert Cioffi said he knew nothing of the relationship before it became public, but “he conceded that board members and some administrators were aware of concerns about the climate in the development office…” (Chronicle of Higher Education) To borrow the classic Watergate line, “What did they know and when did they know it?” And why didn’t they do anything? Or at least ask some pointed questions?

The UVM review said that, although there was no actual wrongdoing, “Effective management and oversight were lacking, for which the president, and in turn the Board of Trustees, must accept final responsibility.”

To which I say, what do you mean by accepting responsibility? I think we all know the answer to that: not a damned thing.

p.s. The Board took another bold, decisive action as well. Following widespread criticism of Fogel’s severance package, Cioffi announced that the board has begun “a study of executive compensation.” I can hardly wait for the results of that little gem.  

Per today’s Brattleboro Reformer:

According to police, at around 8:15 a.m., a 59-year-old man walked into the Co-op and shot and killed an employee, also a 59-year-old man. A press release from the Brattleboro Town Office stated that the two had been co-workers at the Co-op.

More details will come out soon, I’m certain– from what I’ve read, the shooter is in custody.  I think I know who both the shooter and victim are.

I’ve spent a lot of time at the Brattleboro Food Co-Op.  I used to work member hours there and have done multiple music performances there.  That’s an aside from the number of times I’ve stopped in for a quick meal while in Brattleboro for some reason or other.  

I’m a little numb right now and don’t have anything of use to offer at this moment but I wanted to get this up here and let everyone know what’s going on.  The Co-op is closed today and tomorrow and there will be a vigil tomorrow (Wednesday) night.

(I don’t always promote diaries that look too much like press releases, but it was good of Sec. Condos to share a copy of this letter with us, and it also broaches a big topic du jour we haven’t tackled yet. – promoted by odum)

August 9, 2011

The Honorable House Speaker John Boehner

H – 232, The Capitol

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Speaker Boehner,

The American people are upset with the political dysfunction in Congress, and rightly so, following the months of infighting over the debt ceiling.  They desperately want political leaders who can rise above partisan politics and special interests to work on their behalf to solve the serious issues we are facing.  The American people desperately need to have our trust in our elected representatives restored.

One of the ways we can begin restoring that trust is to have the bi-partisan Debt Reduction Super Committee work in an open and transparent manner. Closed meetings and records will only perpetuate popular perceptions that our national government represents special interests, not the interests of the country.  

The Debt Reduction Super Committee is supposed to work on a bi-partisan plan to address a fair and balanced approach to deficit reduction and changes to programs, while promoting job growth and economic stimulus. This Super Committee will be working for ALL Americans.

The Debt Reduction Super Committee will have tremendous flexibility and power to change the future direction of the United States; and as a result must be accountable to the American public – which can only be accomplished through open and transparent meetings and records regardless of physical form. It is imperative that this Super Committee work in a way that restores Americans’ faith in government.

Open government is good government. Distrust in government is not good for our democratic process – the public has a right to know what its government is doing.

I urge you to take the appropriate steps to mandate that this Debt Reduction Super Committee accomplish its work in the open, under the watchful eyes of all American citizens. Closing the doors to transparency will only foster further distrust of our leaders.

Vermont’s Constitution and State Statutes deal with open government in a very succinct way:

“That all power being originally inherent in and consequently derived from the people, therefore, all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants; and at all times, in a legal way, accountable to them.” (Vermont Constitution Article 6.)

Pg. 2

“Officers of government are trustees and servants of the people and it is in the public interest to enable any person to review and criticize their decisions even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment.” (1 V.S.A. § 315)

Open and transparent government is a burden on government that should be embraced. American citizens, and the world, are watching – it is important to restore faith and trust in America.

Sincerely,

James C. Condos

Vermont Secretary of State

Cc: The Honorable House Majority Leader Eric Cantor

The Honorable House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

The Honorable Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

The Honorable Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

The Honorable Senator Patrick Leahy

The Honorable Senator Bernie Sanders

The Honorable Representative Peter Welch

In light of the very recent Supreme Court decision upholding a permit for JLD Properties to build a big box Walmart in St. Albans,  I have a challenge to put to Governor Peter Shumlin:

Deliver to us the transparency and accountability that you pledged just months ago in your election campaign.



I bought it; hook, line and sinker; and I worked tirelessly after your nomination to see you elected.

Just three short months after you took office, I sent an e-mail on the governor’s website asking that, given the nature and intent of Act 250 permitting, science, and not just business, be represented in appointments to the District 6 Environmental Commission.

I also specifically explained the potential conflicts of interests that made businessman and Douglas appointee Dan Luneau an inappropriate choice for that commission.  As I pointed out, the fact that his family has opportunistically located a big retail business at Exit 20 of I-89, where most large-scale development requiring Act 250 review is likely to occur, makes his bias permanently suspect.  

That bias has already been raised as an issue at the Act 250 hearings regarding the St. Albans Walmart, but Mr. Luneau refused to recuse himself.  

Vermont law, it seems, leaves it up to the individual to decide for himself whether or not he can act in a quasi-judicial role without bias.  

As naive as this arrangement seems, it is worsened by the fact that there is no penalty if the individual acting in this role is found to have made a judgement that was contaminated by his conflict of interests.

Bearing all of this in mind, and in light of the fact that accountability had been so much a component of his election promises, one would think that the Governor might take very seriously the concerns raised by a District 6 resident about appointments to her local Commission.

Without recounting once again the slow exchange of phone calls and letters in a vain attempt to get the Governor to not re-appoint Mr. Luneau as Chair of the District 6 commission, I will just leave you to read all of that in the link  I have provided.  

Today I have been told that there is also no penalty enforceable on  Bob Johnson who was the chairman of the DRB that issued the local Walmart permit, despite the fact that the Supreme Court of Vermont clearly states in its findings that his actions flagrantly violated our civil rights.

So much for accountability.

There is a culture of cronyism run wild in Vermont.  It contaminates decisions on such a routine basis that most people have simply come to accept it as “just the way things get done.”

This simply is WRONG.  If you can’t see that, I’m afraid there isn’t much hope for the promise of accountability.

Here then is my challenge to the Shumlin administration:

Make good on your promise.  Charge the legislature with drafting a statewide ethics policy that effectively addresses conflicts of interests by establishing meaningful penalties for violations.



We deserve that much protection at least.

As you have read in the comments last week, there was some polling going on in Vermont a few days ago. We now know some of what was being polled (besides the gov-stuff), and it was kind of an eye-roller. From Public Policy Polling (PPP):

If there’s any state where you could imagine there being a serious desire among Democratic voters to replace Barack Obama with someone further to the left next year it would probably be Vermont. Not only is it one of the most liberal states in the country it’s also the home of 2 liberal icons, Bernie Sanders and Howard Dean, who if there was going to be a viable primary challenger seem like plausible candidates.

The results were predictable, and the poll largely a waste of time. First of all, there’s no primary challenge to Obama in sight anywhere, and while Vermont may be “liberal” (it’s actually more complex than the “liberal” stamp outsiders slap on us, of course – as PPP shows in their analysis), Obama is immensely popular here – possibly more popular than in any other state (at least from unscientific appearances).

According to PPP’s polling, Sanders would trail trail the President 52-33, but in a bit of a surprise (to me, anyway) would defeat Obama 50-38 among voters describing themselves as ‘very liberal.’ That difference gets wiped out among the ‘somewhat liberal’ set, where Bernie came out with a 39 point deficit. He also showed a 32 point disadvantage with moderates at 57-25.

Despite the fact that they tracked with similar approval/disapproval numbers, Obama would beat Dean by an even larger margin: 61-24, as Dean is not as popular with the ‘very liberal’ set (many of whom remember his center-to-right tenure as Governor, no doubt). Obama’s came in at 45 points better against Dean than against Bernie with that group. The spread among the other ideological demographics was similar.

All in a all a goofy poll. It was probably fun chatting up the idea around the PPP meeting room table, though.

In the more meaningful column, PPP did poll GOP-oriented voters in Vermont on their primary choice. Here was the spread:

Mitt Romney: 26%

Michele Bachmann: 16%

Sarah Palin: 16%

Rick Perry: 10%

Herman Cain: 9%

Ron Paul: 7%

Newt Gingrich: 6%

Jon Huntsman: 3%

Tim Pawlenty: 1%

Look at all that love for Herman Cain! This could be his state (well, relatively speaking). Wonder if the secessionists will claim Ron Paul as their own and try to fluff up their traditional performance on the ballot with his numbers.

Without Palin, here’s the spread: Romney: 29%,  Bachmann 21%, Perry 11%, Cain 10%, Gingrich 9%, Paul 8%, Perry 2%, Huntsman 1%.

“I find it interesting to see S&P so vigilant now in downgrading the U.S. credit rating. Where were they four years ago when they, and other credit rating agencies, helped cause this horrendous recession by providing AAA ratings to worthless sub-prime mortgage securities on behalf of Wall Street investment firms?  Where were they last December when Congress and the White House drove up the national debt by $700 billion by extending Bush’s tax breaks for the rich?”

“I find it interesting to see S&P so vigilant now in downgrading the U.S. credit rating. Where were they four years ago when they, and other credit rating agencies, helped cause this horrendous recession by providing AAA ratings to worthless sub-prime mortgage securities on behalf of Wall Street investment firms?  Where were they last December when Congress and the White House drove up the national debt by $700 billion by extending Bush’s tax breaks for the rich?”

First, the disclaimer:

I am an active member of the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth.

I have served as spokesperson for the group through much of the eight+ years in which we have been opposing the current JLD Properties St. Albans Walmart application.  

Here follows our formal statement on the Supreme Court decision to uphold the permit:

The Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth are extremely disappointed by the decision of Vermont’s Supreme Court with regard to the J.L.D. Properties Walmart permit application.  

The decision indicates a disregard for citizen access within the local permit process, not to mention for the validity of that process itself.

The judges acknowledged the egregious nature of conflicts of interest that occurred in the local permit process, which is the only level at which ordinary citizens may participate without devoting considerable financial resources to the effort. By ruling that those conflicts of interest do not matter because of the “de novo” nature of the Environmental Court hearing, they are saying essentially that the local permit is meaningless.

We sincerely hope for the best possible outcome for our communities, and we trust that the careful scrutiny that we will apply to Mr. Davis’ St. Albans Walmart, both during the construction phase and throughout its operation, will serve to ensure that this will be the most scrupulously operated Walmart store in history, and that none of the issues of traffic congestion, secondary growth, store closings and environmental degradation that we fear will be allowed to ensue.

There is so much more I’d like to say about this, but I’ll reserve that for another time.