Editor’s note: This commentary is by Steve May, of Richmond, the founder of a new nonprofit organization Vermont Rising, which addresses ethics and electoral reform. In addition, he is a member of the Selectboard in Richmond and a clinical social worker with an office in Shelburne.
[A]nthony Pollina is to be commended for his leading the fight on ethics and good government in Montpelier. When no one wanted to talk about how Vermont gets a grade of D- from the Sunshine Foundation for transparency in government, Pollina drove the debate, as a matter of sheer will delivered a bill last year and amassed a collection of Senate colleagues who will join him lifting the bill through the legislative process in the Senate in the next couple weeks, and then off to the House. As a result, Vermont may finally move off the list of states without an ethics commission. Forty-seven other states have an ethics commission. Vermont and two other states do no not.
Had Pollina’s proposal passed the House and Senate last year, perhaps a measure of review would be applied to Gov. Scott’s sale of his interest in DuBois Construction. The terms of the deal deserve scrutiny: an arrangement that permits the governor to sell his shares in a deal financed over the next 15 years at 3 percent interest. The governor has claimed that the company is worth $2.5 million. Who says? Was there an independent appraisal? More importantly, until the governor is clear of his financial entanglements with DuBois he continues to benefit from all DuBois contracting.
More to the point, DuBois does a considerable amount of work for the state, what role will administration officials have in dealing with DuBois when they bid on state construction projects. Administration officials looking to advance their careers may be tempted to find a reason to prefer DuBois over other similarly situated vendors. In doing so, they might come to believe that selecting DuBois over other vendors serves both the governor’s ongoing financial interest and their professional ambitions. You don’t have to be assistant deputy cabinet secretary to believe that currying favor with the administration would have positive benefits. It might even lead you to select DuBois as your contractor. Throwing work to a financial concern which will have a relationship with the governor across the entirety of his term, enriching his friend and former business partner, with whom he has negotiated a very generous repayment only serves to benefit the governor.
It is the dealings that don’t happen, where people self-censor themselves that we should be concerned for.
The governor’s ongoing relationship with DuBois Construction is deeply problematic. It is important that there not be a conflict of interest. If the public believes that through his relationship with his business and former business associates they can influence the governor and the policymaking apparatus of the state, they will try. This goes beyond any actual conflict, the mere perception of a conflict can have implications for the governor and the people of this state.
Repayment of the governor for his shares in the company is contingent on the financial stability of the company. There could be a perception that decisions made or not made might advance the governor’s financial position. So long as this arrangement exists, it is fair to scrutinize the financial dealings of every transaction involving DuBois to determine whether bias or preferential treatment in contracting has occurred. But, the more egregious and obvious issues are not the ones which we should be concerned about as citizens. Those will leave a paper trail should they occur at all. Rather, it is the dealings that don’t happen, where people self-censor themselves that we should be concerned for. They won’t leave a fingerprint or papertrail, but: they are every bit as corrosive with regard to the administration of the daily affairs of state.
Vermont has been blessed with leaders of the highest ethical standing from across the political spectrum: Aiken, Stafford, Jeffords and Hoff, Leahy and Sanders. This deal falls well short of their example. It is critical that the governor divest his interest. His sale agreement as currently written leaves him with an ongoing financial interest in the continued wellbeing of DuBois Construction. Those who would seek to influence the governor and the administration can act through the prism of DuBois to curry favor and advance agendas. It is entirely appropriate, for the people of our state to want their governor to be above reproach. This deal may be legal, it may meet the minimums necessary to comply with Vermont law, but we appeal to a higher authority. Vermonters should expect nothing less.
