by Mike Smith Governor Peter Shumlin often dubs himself as the “transparency governor.” But proclaiming yourself as transparent and actually being transparent are two different things. You can claim transparency by simply stating it. However, definitive action is required to accomplish the task of being transparent no matter how much you try to hype the claim. In December of last year, Shumlin traveled to Paris to attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference. Upon his return, he reported that the cost of the trip was just $1,251 — the cost of travel for one aide. The administration reported that Georgetown University picked up the tab for the governor’s trans-Atlantic flight and lodging.
His office recently stated that Shumlin personally paid for his meals while in Paris. Still, at just $1,251, the reported cost of the trip left many shaking their heads in disbelief — because it seemed too little. Perhaps there was a reason for suspicion because it appears that some costs were left out.
For example, what were his transportation costs in and around Paris? What were the costs — travel, hotel and meals — of the security detail that accompanied the governor? Unless shown otherwise, they are usually funded by taxpayers. Were any special travel accommodations made for the governor’s personal benefit that need to be added to the cost of the trip? No one knows these costs because the administration is refusing to release them claiming — rather unbelievably — that they are matters of security.
This is a stretch, at best.
First, the trip is in the past so it flies in the face of reason that expenses from December would pose a security threat. Taxpayer-funded expenses could be easily released without compromising security protocols. Second, with this logic there is nothing to prevent the administration from keeping other expenses secret by running them through the Department of Public Safety and arguing they are not subject to the public records law or the Freedom of Information Act.
Governors must travel, and when a governor says it is important to be at an event — even in faraway places — most Vermonters will understand the need for the trip. All that is asked in return is that there is a full and accurate accounting of the cost of the trip and the benefit to the state.
Vermonters also expect that there will be security costs when the governor travels. They see, first-hand, the governor traveling with a security detail throughout Vermont. It has been this way for years. Certainly, they would expect that soon after the terror attacks in Paris there would be security accompanying the governor. So there is no reason not to list them as expenses that taxpayers had to pay on this trip.
As the saying goes, when you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing. To many, it appears that the administration is so nervous about the cost of this trip — and how it would be perceived by Vermonters — that they intentionally decided to disclose only some costs, but not others. That suggests there are expenses they don’t want Vermonters to see. It looks as if they are trying to hide something, when, if they had simply disclosed everything up front, it’s likely little would have been said of this issue.
Their decisions, and contorted explanations, are problematic for an administration that is already running on depleted trust. They’ve had past problems trying to be too political and too cute with information that could be misconstrued or embarrassing. From delaying the release of a single-payer health care cost analysis until after the governor’s re-election, to downplaying Vermont Health Connect problems as a “nothing-burger,” or reporting only half of the impact of a large payroll tax proposal in a budget speech — there is an ever-growing feeling among Vermonters that this administration does not provide full disclosure of information. This withholding of expenses only adds to this perception. And it raises the issue of trust and transparency for other candidates running for office. Will those of Shumlin’s own political party continue this practice of withholding what should be public information?
In the end, the administration that promised, repeatedly, to be the most transparent seemingly isn’t. In this case, it appears to be for a reason that escapes the logic of many.
Mike Smith was secretary of administration and secretary of human services under former Governor Jim Douglas. He is the host of the radio program “Open Mike with Mike Smith” on WDEV and a frequent contributor to Vermont Business Magazine.