“I was disappointed,” Scott said at a Friday press conference. “I’d offered to come before them, offered any information they might need.” But he got no response to his offer.
In fact, the ethics commission has no authority to investigate or take testimony. It can only refer ethics complaints to other agencies or issue advisory opinions in response to inquiries. In this case, it issued an advisory opinion.
Scott said that the panel’s process is “fraught with danger,” apparently meaning that other parties would try to use it for political advantage. Which is what he believes happened in this case. “It seems suspect to me that a powerful political organization makes a complaint during October of an election year,” he said.
At issue is Scott’s relationship with DuBois Construction. Before he became governor, Scott owned half of the company. In an effort to avoid conflicts of interest, Scott sold his ownership stake — but he financed the deal himself. That meant the loan comprised the bulk of his net worth, and he gets monthly payments from DuBois. During 2017, those payments added up to $75,000.
The Vermont Public Interest Research Group originally sought guidance from the Ethics Commission in January. At the time, the panel rebuffed VPIRG because it had yet to approve a state code of ethics. On June 6, the commission adopted such a code.
On August 31, VPIRG asked the panel to issue an advisory opinion based on the new code. Some commissioners noted the political implications of the request, but the full panel decided to proceed.
“It’s clear that anybody can seek an opinion and our job is to provide one,” said commissioner Chris Davis, an attorney with the Burlington law firm Langrock Sperry & Wool, during the panel’s September meeting.
On October 1, the commission released its opinion, concluding that Scott’s ongoing financial relationship with DuBois creates “a potential or actual conflict of interest,” quoting its own ethics code.
Scott now believes that the commission needs some reworking. But he’s not willing to make any suggestions.
“I’m going to let the legislature work on this,” he said at his Friday press conference. “This is their idea, their concept. They worked on it for a number of years, and I think they’ll continue to work on it.”
The governor also complained that the ethics code had not been vetted before being adopted. “This is a new code that they came up with on their own,” he said. “I don’t think it went through a rules process. I don’t believe there was any oversight by the legislature.”
The 2017 statute establishing the ethics commission does not provide for any legislative review. The salient portion of state law reads, “The Ethics Commission, in consultation with the Department of Human Resources, shall create and maintain the State Code of Ethics that sets forth general principles of governmental ethical conduct.”
The ethics commission has no enforcement powers, and its opinions have no practical impact beyond embarrassing publicity.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Another article on this subject by 7Days without any evidence of reporter doing any investigation of the so called $250k contract. Was it an open, competitive, transparent contracting process? Was Dubois the low bidder? Is there evidence a contract even exist? Have there been any payments made to Dubois? Have any companies complained of an unfair bidding process? If the Ethics Commission has no desire to understand the facts you would think a reporter might just want to let their readers understand them.
Bob Frazier has hit it on the head. Come on, we have some good investigative reporters and organizations like Seven Days and VTDigger in our state. Get off your duffs and do some digging for the facts of the case!
Was the $250,000 contract put out to bid in the proper process of advertising, sealed bids open in a warned public process and with the lowest qualified bidder receiving the contract?
If not there is a real story here. Otherwise Governor Scott is right and this is a partisan hit and political garbage.
Facts matter! Go and get them !
See Jon Margoliss piece in VT Digger on this amateurish political hit job.
Politicians and the wealthy live by a different set of rules than the rest of us and they never have a conflict. Ever. No matter who their friends are, whether they are developers on local zoning boards, whether they and their wealthy friends all benefit from new laws or tax breaks, somehow they are entirely free from human bias and psychology and are free to vote on whatever they want.
Good thing our god-like leaders are in charge – us regular, poor, mere mortals are incapable of being leaders in Vermont.
Scott should have checked into it before he wrote up the payment contract.
@ BTV4ALL: I understand your resentment. But I would say that there are real conflicts of interest, and then there are politically motivated stunts like the one Paul Burns is pulling. Scott sold off all of his business interests when he became Governor. Period.
@ GI Gripe: You say, *Scott should have checked into it.* Thats very helpful. Can you tell us exactly what you would have done in Governor Scotts shoes? Would you have given away your $2.5 million ownership interest in DuBois Construction for free? Somehow I dont think so.
@KnowYourAssumptions he sold it off yet still makes more in interest payments than most Vermonters make in a year working 40+ hours a week. Seems like if the business fails hes out $2.5 million + $70k interests a year so a reasonable person could easily assume hes still financially tied to the company, even if he sold it off. Turns out you cant sell off a property if you just are owed the same amount of money. Thats not a sale that just a way for Scott to make even more money than he was before he sold it.
All Scott did was sell his rights to run the company. He still owns 50% of the shares, with interest. Over the years that % may eventually reach zero, but until then hes an investor and has a financial stake and interest.
It can both be a politically timed issue AND be accurate. The two arent mutually exclusive.
Its really amusing to read all of the comments from the right-wingers on this. Political hit job? Please. Shoddy reporting? Give me a break. Even the extreme right-wingers commenting here have to be able to see that theres an ethical issue with a governor who has these types of ties to a business that makes its money on state government contracts. They’re being deliberately obtuse and would be singing a far different tune if the governor were a Dem. But then again, as we’ve seen time and again on a national level, conservatives are willing to overlook all sorts of ethical, moral and even criminal behavior by their leaders in their quest to fulfill their extreme right-wing agenda.
*He still owns 50% of the shares*
That is incorrect. Please read the 5th paragraph of the article again.
Thanks
It does point out his failed leadership once again. He’s complaining about it but he should have done his due diligence before signing it into law. Same thing with the individual which he signed before the legislature put a penalty in the bill. Of course he ran away from that signing by saying it was only for determining a penalty.
KNOW,
I would have checked into it before I signed any contract to be sure it wouldn’t have been a conflict of interest. ..
Perhaps one could look at the revolving door between non-profits and government for some interesting connections.
https://sevendaysvt-test.newspackstaging.com/vermont/these-…
Some business people rather than lawyers would do wonders for us, however that is not true in all cases IMHO
The existing readiness contract is irrelevant. As I understand it, everyone who bid was awarded, because it only declares an ability and intention to perform as needed. Also, conflict of interest exists whether contracts are in place or not, as long as future contracts are possible. If the Governor doesn’t want to, or can’t, divest himself, the company can be disqualified from bidding. Neither is fair and it might be time to acknowledge that in a tiny state with citizen officials, some overlap of private and public obligations is inevitable. That’s not ideal, but neither is precluding all but the idle rich from public office.
Investigating the existing contract is unnecessary, but I’d be curious to know about the collateral for Scott’s $2.5M loan. If the company’s recent acquisition of even more debt sinks it, he might end up owning the whole shebang outright, debt and all.
When Scott sold his shares of the Dubois and made a loan from Dubois to himself, he just changed from direct ownership to major lender (maybe biggest lender to Dubois). Clearly he still has a $2,500,000 interest in Dubois financial success.
He was told this was a conflict at the time, that was publicized in the media. He ignored all that and did it anyway.
Now he whines and claims the Ethic board should have given hi special favor by discussing with him!! He wants special favor! That just show how ethically challenged he is.
The problem is not the Ethic Board, it is Scott.
Congratualtions to the Ethics Board for doing there job, raising this issue. I hope to hear more from them.
DARVO. GOP tactic recently brazenly demonstrated by Kavanaugh. Blame the Ethics Commission? Really, are the voters going to buy this crap? Resistance to Trump starts right here! Reject Scott, reject GOP.
Leaderhune the problem with your logic is the governor is not a Republican. Anyone paying attention can see he is a full fledged Democrat who calls himself a Republican. Action after action by him screams Democrat.
If the so-called Ethics Panel is not subject to legislative review, has no enforcement power and is permitted only to issue opinions, it is nothing more than an “opinion page” available to the prevailing political party to issue damaging “opinions” to possibly smear and damage political opponents. Franz Kafka tried to warn us about entities like this so-called Ethics Panel. Joseph McCarthy and Josef Goebbels would assuredly find this Ethics Panel very much to their liking.
“I would have checked into it before I signed any contract to be sure it wouldn’t have been a conflict of interest. …”
And THEN what would you have done? Walked completely away from a $2.5 million ownership interest in your company? Resigned from the governorship?
You would have “checked into it.” That’s a really, really, really, really, really helpful solution. Thanks so much.
Know
There’s other things he could have done. What would you have done?
“There’s other things he could have done.”
And I keep asking you to say what they are. But you don’t.
So far all you’ve said is that Scott should have “checked into it” and that you would have “checked into it.”
That’s really great. Thanks.