When Scott became governor, he sold his half-interest in DuBois Construction to the company for $2.5 million. The deal was designed to avoid potential conflicts of interest, since DuBois frequently bids on state contracts. But the sale was financed by Scott himself, which means that he retains a large financial stake in DuBois. He receives monthly loan payments from the firm that totaled $75,000 in the year 2017.
The Vermont Public Interest Research Group claimed that the DuBois deal clearly violates the Ethics Commission’s code of ethics and sought an advisory opinion from the commission. VPIRG chose not to file an ethics complaint against Scott because complaints are handled behind closed doors and the process is exempt from public disclosure. The advisory opinion process is entirely open.
At its meeting on September 5, the commission voted unanimously to have executive director Brian Leven prepare a draft opinion for the full body to consider. On September 12, Leven issued his draft, which he made available to the media.
As first reported on VTDigger.org, Leven’s draft essentially dodged the question. He asserted that the commission could not issue an advisory opinion about a specific situation because it has no authority to investigate the facts of the situation. The law establishing the commission, he wrote, “confers only the authority to provide general advice or interpretation.”
Leven did note that the DuBois deal seems to violate a passage in the ethics code that warns against “the appearance of a potential or actual conflict of interest.” But he asserted that this warning is nothing more than advice. “Public officials must use their own discretion in determining whether or not to adhere to this guidance,” he wrote in the draft opinion.
His draft was criticized by VPIRG executive director Paul Burns. “The only question is, ‘Is the Ethics Commission willing to provide any guidance on the code they just adopted?'” Burns said. “If not, it calls into question the value of the Ethics Commission itself.”
The commission apparently agrees with Burns. “We’re going back and forth on redrafting,” said commission chair Madeline Motta, a professional ethics consultant. “We’re unified in that we’d like to see a fuller response.”
During its September 5 meeting, commission members agreed that the body could issue an advisory opinion based on the assumption that a set of facts is true — without having to investigate. “We can do it in a way that’s educational,” Motta said Thursday. “Why even have an ethics code unless you interpret it and offer advice?”
The Scott administration has consistently defended the DuBois sale. After the September 5 meeting, Scott spokesperson Ethan Latour accused VPIRG of playing politics. “This request for an opinion is a recycled partisan attack by an organization that tries to disguise itself as acting in the public interest,” Latour wrote in an email.
The commissioners will continue working with Leven to draft an opinion that’s more in line with their desire to provide guidance on ethical issues. The panel’s next meeting is on October 3, when it could approve such an opinion.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Mr. Burns is an agent of the Democratic Party. This is partisan.
I have been involved in both school and municipal bidding practices. The way it works is a proposal with specs. is put out, sealed bids submitted and opened at a public meeting to which the public and all bidders are invited. The lowest qualified bidder wins the project. Unless it is done differently for state highway and construction projects, it would be easy to see if Dubois had been awarded any construction projects improperly.
I am astounded that with all the clamor particularly around election season, no one making noise has bothered to see if there are any improprieties. That being the case this looks more like cheap partisan politics than a serious inquiry.
Of course it’s partisan. That’s what parties do to each other. That’s also how conflicts of interest laws get enforced. When’s the last time you heard of a Dem seriously investigating a Dem, or a Rep seriously investigating Rep?
“That’s also how conflicts of interest laws get enforced. When’s the last time you heard of a Dem seriously investigating a Dem, or a Rep seriously investigating Rep?”
Umm, let’s see . . . how about Asst. U.S. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (Republican) appointing Bill Mueller (Republican) to investigate Trump (Republican)? That seems to be working very well.
How about the U.S. Dept. of Justice, headed by a seriously Republican Attorney General (Jeff Sessions), recently investigating and prosecuting two seriously right wing Republican U.S. Congressmen for corruption (to Trump’s great dismay)?
Your theory that we need partisanship, or else the ethics of public officials won’t be investigated, i.e., that only Dems will enforce laws against Republicans and vice versa, is both wrong and wrongheaded. We need strong institutions, not partisanship.
knowyour assumptions, if you want to switch the subject to criminal prosecutions, then yes, you’re right. But let’s stay on the topic of conflicts of interest.
Your question was, “When’s the last time you heard of a Dem seriously investigating a Dem, or a Rep seriously investigating Rep?”
I answered your question and now you’re trying to move the goalposts. And furthermore Mueller’s investigation is not a “criminal prosecution.” It is an investigation, period. By a Republican of a Republican.
To get back to my original point, there is no “there” there in this conflict of interest charge against the Governor. Mr. Burns is doing this purely for political reasons, just to try to smear Scott before the election. IMO.
knowyourassumption, you’re the one who moved the goalposts. The article is about conflict of interests, as was my comment and question about politicians getting investigated by their own party for conflicts of interests. There was no reason for me to talk about any other types of investigations.