At the Shelburne Town Hall debate on Tuesday, Bill Sorrell and TJ Donovan were peppered with questions from Vermonters on issues ranging from legislation on patient-directed death and a ban on automatic weapons to whether the candidates support GMO food labeling to claims that Attorney General Sorrell opposed Abenaki recognition and what the AG’s office might do to prevent compost contamination.
The campaign topics that have preoccupied the media recently — claims that TJ Donovan’s team paid $10,000 for a “push poll” to try to smear Sorrell and an apology for sending a Brattleboro couple an absentee ballot they hadn’t requested — were nowhere in evidence.
The two men, sitting up on a stage only obliquely lit by soft sunset light, had both settled on wearing Oxford shirts with the sleeves rolled up. Each also wore a neatly knotted professional’s tie — Sorrell’s plaid with a blue shirt, Donovan’s burgundy with a white shirt. There was no banter, but they kept up a rapid-fire but pleasant sparring as they answered questions from the floor and from moderator Cheryl Hanna of the Vermont Law School for well over an hour. The last few minutes were devoted to what Hanna called “speed debating,” as she fired off questions about decriminalizing marijuana and a proposed moratorium on Taser use by police.
When it came to the issue of banning automatic weapons both men lauded Vermonters’ “responsible gun ownership” and refused to be drawn further on the topic.
If there was a difference in this lawyers’ “debate” — the third of as many as 12 by the primary date on Aug. 28 — it was that Donovan used as many opportunities as possible to underline the new “energy” he would bring to the office, returning frequently to the theme that after 15 years “it’s time for a change” because “times have changed.”
Sorrell, who was asked about his history as attorney general, tended to use the cases brought up — some won, some lost — to explain the limitations of the attorney general’s role, one which requires him to defend sometimes badly written statutes.
When asked if he supports a GMO labeling law, he referred back to the challenges to laws requiring rBST labeling for dairy farms and those that identified mercury on a label. The mercury suit was successful for Vermont; the rBST statute was overturned. His concern with requiring GMO labeling, which he said he as a consumer supports is that “GMO labeling — and this was a concern of the legislators after we went in and did our job and expressed, with legislative counsel there, that there was a very big risk … [that] there is a big-time risk if you have mandatory GMO labeling that we could be sued and we could lose and then pay more attorneys’ fees. And it’s not [about] getting in there and working with the legislators, it’s whether you’re mandated or not. And if you do, you’re going to get sued and I will do my best, if the Legislature decides to do that, to defend that statute.”
Sorrell then reminded the audience that he had just been “beaten up for losing $5 million over 15 years,” suggesting that this is unavoidable when you are in an office that must defend whatever statutes the Legislature passes, whether they have been advised by the attorney general to revise or even deep six them or not.
The reference to being beaten up over losing $5 million was to Donovan’s criticism that Sorrell could have avoided some of those costs by hiring outside experts to help in complicated cases, such as those that go to the higher courts.
When asked why he had not prevailed in the Abenaki tribal suit, Sorrell’s response was: “The issue was about enforcing the law. It was a request for formal recognition by the Department of the Interior in Washington. That bestows huge rights on groups who seek tribal recognition. I’m all for tribal recognition for those that meet the stringent federal criteria, but I would not doing my job if I just said ‘Oh, we’re not going to hold you to the necessary proof. You want it, you can have it. We’d then have all the issues with land claims and casinos like those states that have federally recognized tribes. We researched it, we came up with the evidence. … Washington made a decision that the groups seeking recognition weren’t entitled to it. I just did my job here. It’s nothing to do with any bias or prejudice against Native Americans. Sometimes the attorney general has a tough job.” Donovan was not asked for a response on the tribal recognition question.
Donovan said he would work to improve life for more Vermonters, especially the elderly and the poor — whom he sees as “disenfranchised for too many years” — by collaborating with the health and social service sector more often and, to avoid the kinds of expensive losses that arise when the state loses a suit, he would hire outside experts as needed to help ensure successful litigation: “Let’s not be penny wise and pound foolish.”
Sylvia Knight, of Charlotte, asked what could be done to keep herbicides out of compost. Donovan said he wasn’t sure. “These last four years of economic crisis, that has really tested people, I think for the better, to do more, to talk, to get out of their traditional roles,” Donovan said. He talked about partnering and sharing resources because of limited funding and added, “That’s good government.”
Donovan tried several times to drive home the point that by working with the community to prevent crimes such as drug abuse and drug sales that otherwise led to more expensive outcomes like incarceration the taxpayers could save money. His answer to steeply rising incarceration costs, the second-fastest growing budget item after health care, is to cite his record as state’s attorney for Chittenden County: “We kept this community safe. We addressed issues of poverty, of substance abuse, of mental illness. We’ve done it in a quiet way, a collaborative way. We’ve done it in a smart way that saved thousands of dollars for taxpayers.”
Asked bluntly if his interest in “protecting Vermonters” was really about running for higher office, Donovan replied that he is “ambitious to help people.” Much of his pitch to the Chittenden County crowd was about “fairness” to those in need, including the poor, the elderly and those at risk from public ills such as drug gangs and sexual and elder abuse.
On the subject of the contamination of compost, Sorrell characteristically focused the audience on the job the attorney general has to do. “Studies are now going on of their compost to determine what pesticides are present and then to determine from what sources, out-of-state as opposed to in-state. … Ultimately the question will be do we have the proof leading to a single source that we can bring into a court action and meet our burden of proof to convict somebody of violating the laws by using these substances.”
