Campaign season begins Monday

Hot potato between Ethics Commisson, Secretary of State’s office

By Sam Douglass

A missing financial disclosure form and a conflict between two state offices over who should be responsible for it, dominated conversation in the House Government Operations committee this past week. The conversation highlighted a lack of resources for offices in state government and an inability or unwillingness to answer requests and questions from the public, which may result in ramifications in the upcoming election.

This week, the House Committee on Government Operations heard testimony on amendments to an elections bill, S.298, that would give new responsibility to the State Ethics Commission to answer questions about the biennial financial disclosure filled out by prospective candidates for public office. Testimony revealed that the status of the form for this year has been in limbo since January.

However, according to testimony on Wednesday from the commissioner of the State Ethics Commission, Paul Erlbaum, the disclosure form wasn’t missing.

“So months ago, we provided the secretary of state’s election division with a revised form. There was a change in the statute. Just like the statute says, we maintained it. We updated it. I think it was in January we sent it. They have it,” said Erlbaum.

“So months ago, we provided the secretary of state’s election division with a revised form. There was a change in the statute. Just like the statute says, we maintained it. We updated it. I think it was in January we sent it. They have it.”

– Ethics Commission Chair Paul Erlbaum

This was reiterated in testimony given by the commission on Thursday. 

“We don’t track the election cycle and when the forms are needed. So the week, the day actually I was leaving for my sabbatical, I got a call from Sean in the Secretary’s office asking for the form. And so I shared with him the model form,” said Ethics Commission executive director Christina Sivret over Zoom.

Deputy Secretary of State, Lauen Hibbert, confirmed receipt of the form but explained that it contains numerous technical issues that makes it not ready to be available to the public, and that it’s the position of the Secretary of State that the form should be posted on the Ethics Commission’s own website.

– Deputy Secretry of State Lauren Hibbert

“If we don’t have this form available to the public collectively as a state, then that puts candidates filing later, which puts an extreme amount of crunch on our office to process the petitions and the candidate financial disclosures.”

This seems to reveal the heart of the issue: a fundamental disagreement between the Ethics Commission and the Secretary of State’s office over who should post the disclosure for candidates, with both offices either unwilling or understaffed to answer questions about the form for prospective candidates.

While his office maintains and updates the disclosure form, Erlbaum testified against the amendment on Wednesday, citing significant underfunding and resource shortages.

“If there were a form that you have designed, why would you not be able to answer questions about a form that you designed?” asked Rep. Lisa Hango (R-Franklin 5)

“Because we don’t have the staff to do it,” said Erlbaum. “We’re already trying to respond to requests for advice, requests for guidance from state public servants.”

He explained that his office only has one part-time executive director, who is currently taking a sabbatical, and one part-time administrative assistant to handle requests along with their regular duties. Responding to additional requests and questions, such as the amendment proposed, is something his office can’t accommodate. If a candidate has questions about the form, he said, they are encouraged to hire a private attorney. 

However, for candidates, especially new or young candidates, this may be a heavy task. 

“I want to just say aloud that it’s already really prohibitive to run for office, especially in a state where our legislature is one of the lowest paying in the nation,” said Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (D-Chittenden 14). “We don’t have offices, we don’t have staff, we don’t have healthcare insurance. So the assumption that we could hire private attorneys is wild. You’re gonna see way fewer people, especially way fewer people who look like me in this building, if that’s what it takes to run for office is hire a private attorney. 

A similar sentiment was expressed by former lawmaker and current head of the Vermont Republican Party, Paul Dame, who also testified. 

“I think it [filing a financial disclosure] is a burden for regular Vermonters. It’s a lot just to figure out, do I want to run? What does that mean? What’s that mean for my family, my business? And then say, oh yeah, give me a copy of your tax return,” said Dame.

While this issue may seem to be a bureaucratic disagreement between state offices, it could have significant ramifications for the upcoming midterm elections. 

Under recently passed legislation, candidates are obligated to file financial disclosures with new penalties for candidates who fail to file. The administration of such penalties falls partly on the Ethics Commission and was described by Erlbaum as, “yet another unfunded mandate,” in reference to his office’s lack of resources.

The period for candidates to file paperwork to run for office begins Monday, April 27 and it is unknown when the disclosures will be made available to candidates. With similar resource shortages at the Secretary of State’s office, there is concern that shortening the period for candidates to file will create a backlog.

“If we don’t have this form available to the public collectively as a state, then that puts candidates filing later, which puts an extreme amount of crunch on our office to process the petitions and the candidate financial disclosures,” said Hibbert.

Members of the committee and testimony in the committee offered solutions, including simplification of the form to reduce the need for either office to answer questions or to offer a robust FAQ section with the form. But the committee proposed another solution; eliminate the penalties associated with the disclosure for this election until the issue can be fully rectified. This part of the amendments was ultimately passed by the committee on Friday.

On Wednesday, this potential solution was criticized by multiple witnesses in front of the committee, including the Secretary of State’s office and representatives of the Vermont Democrats and Republicans.

“I want to be direct that suspending disclosure requirements is not in the best interest of Vermont voters. Disclosure requirements exist for a reason. They’re part of how the public knows who is running for office and whether candidates are meeting their obligations under the law,” said May Hanlon, executive director for the Vermont Democratic Party.

Following multiple days of testimony, the committee unanimously voted to approve the bill with a final set of amendments that attempts to rectify the conflict, but the situation has already moved beyond private disagreements between the two offices. 

In a letter published following his testimony, Dame excoriated the State Ethics Commission for the situation, calling it “severe dysfunction” and a “turf battle” between the two offices and called for the firing of the commission’s executive director for failure to provide the required form for candidates prior to the upcoming deadline.

“Statute seems pretty clear that the Ethics Commission is responsible for creating the form and making it available to candidates,” he wrote. “Unless something changes in the next few days, the State Ethics Commission, ironically, will be in violation of state law.”

“This is frankly embarrassing,” said Hibbert about inter-office clash with the State Ethics Commission over financial disclosures.

Information for In Committee news reports are sourced from GoldenDomeVt.com and the General Assembly website. Generative AI has not been used in the writing of this story.