“Under no circumstances would we ever have advised to use a campaign address for that type of thing,” said John Quinn, the Agency of Digital Services secretary. “You’re blending the line. You’re meshing official business and political business.”
While perhaps inadvisable, it does not appear to be illegal. Staff at the Secretary of State’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office knew of no state law that prohibits the use of campaign email accounts or other resources for official state business — or vice versa. The personnel policy for state employees prohibits the use of government equipment for political activity, but not the reverse.
According to Zuckerman’s chief of staff Megan Polyte, there is no intermingling of information between the lieutenant governor’s office and his campaign. The email addresses of Vermonters who sign up for the newsletter — either at events the lieutenant governor attends or through his official state website — are kept in the same database used by his campaign. But Polyte said they’re entered into a hidden field that only she and one administrative assistant can access.
“It’s not paid for by the campaign. It’s not accessible by anyone in the campaign,” said Polyte, who also serves as an unpaid advisor to the campaign. “It’s my password, my account.”
Polyte said she started using the campaign domain name because newsletters sent from state accounts were ending up in recipients’ spam folders. She tried several other fixes before deciding to use zuckermanforvt.com.
The newsletter spotlights recent legislation, highlights upcoming events — such as a veterans’ town hall or the lieutenant governor’s movie night — and features guest posts from lawmakers, students and others.
To avoid the entire state email system being deemed spam, official state accounts can only send email to 5,000 recipients. But according to Quinn, the Agency of Digital Services has helped multiple state entities find other ways to send mass emails and could easily have helped Zuckerman’s office find a workaround.
“We would absolutely help them. Any state agency, any one of the three branches [of government] that asks us for help, we’ll always advise them on what to do,” Quinn said.
Polyte said she spoke at length with people at the agency and was left with the impression that they couldn’t help her. “I’m more than happy to call them back and try to figure it out,” she said. “That would make my life a lot easier.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Why is this a story? The click bait headline implies something was done improperly. The article then makes clear that this is not the case. Slow news day at 7Days?
“While perhaps inadvisable, it does not appear to be illegal. Staff at the Secretary of State’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office knew of no state law that prohibits the use of campaign email accounts or other resources for official state business or vice versa. The personnel policy for state employees prohibits the use of government equipment for political activity, but not the reverse.”
Also “inadvisable” is taking legislative reimbursements you didn’t qualify for.
Appears to be a conflict of interest here, maybe Paul Burns and VPRG could file an ethics complaint with the Ethics Commision.
Oh, this is way worse than profiting from foreign governments. And not paying taxes. And suing hundreds of people. And colluding with Russia. And being racist and sexist and homophobic and ageist (even though you’re old). And praising people who physically and sexually assault other people. AND sexually assaulting people yourself. And…
A campaign email list is a fundraising tool. If Zuckerman is creating a system in which in order to access official information from the LG’s office you have to open yourself to fundraising requests from the LG, that’s not okay.
Why am I reading this? How many VT reps and senators run campaign emails in tandem with legislative business… but port over constituent emails to their campaigns without the transparency Zuckerman has shown? My own rep appears to do this as well (until I asked to be removed from the campaign list).
This “article” has Toensing fingerprints all over it.
Come on… you know darn well that Zuckerman is doing this so he doesn’t have to pay for anything.. He likes collecting money instead of paying out of his packet. . Remember what he did with the legislative reimbursements, !!!
Zuckerman needs to clean this mess up, even if it is “legal”. It is the perception of impropriety that causes the problems. Otherwise he just looks like another political hack and might as well join the GOP or the Democrats and join them in their perpetual 1%er/Corporate Fellatio services.
The Lt. Governor updating constituents on *his work* is arguably a “soft touch” campaign activity anyway — given that in Vermont, Lt. Gov. often has a different legislative agenda than the Gov. — so using a campaign email actually strikes me as perhaps *more* appropriate than using the state email. As the article notes, the ethical concern would come from using an official email for campaign activities.
It is perhaps misleading to allow sign-ups through his page on the state website — but if I were at an event with an official, even if it wasn’t a campaign event, and I signed up for his/her email list, by default I would assume I was signing up for campaign email as well as legislative updates (though I would expect to see campaign disclaimers on the sign-up sheet too).
“Oh, this is way worse than profiting from foreign governments . . .”
Classic whataboudism.
Like this cost the state any money? Met Polyte is an honest woman, and if she says state operatives didn’t help, I believe her. If you’re going to set a limit on the number of email addressees you can have, then this is a better workaround than using his personal email. Look at the hoofraw Republicans raised over Hillary’s email and be thankful we don’t have that tempest in a teapot here.
One simple clarification. If anyone signs up for the LG newsletter through the official LG webpage, they are not added to the broader campaign email list that I have built over 20 years. If someone has gotten on my list at a campaign event or other communications over the years they are. Folks can also ask to be removed from either list at any time. Please know that anyone who emails the LG office through the state is not added to the campaign emails that are sent out. Our office is more than willing to work with DII to make this work as a separate email. Our prior contacts with lower officials at DII had indicated that was not possible. It is good to hear that it is and we will work with them to make this work as official emails from the state server.
I don’t understand why some people are surprised by this being an issue; he’s defrauded the state before when it came to his mileage reimbursements. Is it that much of a stretch to think that someone with such a glaring ethical deficiency would find every opportunity to do so again, or that people wouldn’t trust him no matter how pure his motives? Fool me once, etc. If anyone has an issue with detailed supervision of Dave to avoid a repeat of his prior bad acts, there is no one to blame but Dave himself.
Oh, the irony of John Quinn, who ran fake “liberal” Twitter accounts for the Scott campaign in 2016, lecturing others on proper use of electronic media…
Funny that Republicans complain about Zuckerman taking the reimbursements they all take, especially since he probably makes (and has) less money than any other politician or candidate.
I don’t think thievery has a party affiliation, it’s wrong for everybody. However given their history with Dean Corren, Terry Bouricius, and Dave Zuckerman it can be argued that the Progs have been particularly brazen with their sticky fingered-ness and unearned mileage claims. As for how much the Zuck makes or has, it’s irrelevant. Stealing doesn’t suddenly become OK once you make below a certain income. Plus given his origins as yet another trustafarian from Brookline, I have to doubt your claim.
I dont think thievery has a party affiliation, its wrong for everybody. However given their history with Dean Corren, Terry Bouricius, and Dave Zuckerman it can be argued that the Progs have been particularly brazen with their sticky fingered-ness and unearned mileage claims. As for how much the Zuck makes or has, its irrelevant. Stealing doesnt suddenly become OK once you make below a certain income. Plus given his origins as yet another trustafarian from Brookline, I have to doubt your claim.
“Funny that Republicans complain about Zuckerman taking the reimbursements they all take”
Would like to know of your support that anyone else besides Zuckerman has taken reimbursements that they admitted they weren’t entitled to.
“especially since he probably makes (and has) less money than any other politician or candidate.”
Have you done any investigation to determine how much money Zuckerman actually has? From Brookline, Mass., owns rental property in Burlington, etc., etc.
For perspective: https://theintercept.com/2018/10/24/steve-…
You’re argument being; “other people steal more so it’s okay”?