There’s no shortage of teachers, lawyers and retirees serving in the Vermont legislature. But just what would happen if one of Montpelier’s top lobbyists — a co-owner and namesake of one of its most influential firms — were to join the Vermont Senate?
That’s the question many in the Capitol are pondering as Gov. Peter Shumlin appears likely to appoint Michael Sirotkin to a vacant Chittenden County Senate seat.
As the widower of the late Sen. Sally Fox, whose seat he would fill, Sirotkin would, in many ways, be a natural pick. But as a contract lobbyist with a three-decade history of influencing his (potential) peers, his appointment could raise some novel questions.
Recognizing that, Sirotkin says that, if appointed, “I would be resigning from my practice immediately.”
And he wouldn’t simply serve out Fox’s term in a caretaker role, then return to lobbying. If appointed, he says, “I would most likely run in 2014.”
Nor would he remain an owner of Sirotkin & Necrason. “I would not seek to retain an interest in my firm,” he says.
But even if he severed all ties with the lobby shop, would Sirotkin not feel some residual loyalty to his former partners and clients? Would it be difficult to make the transition?
“There would be some challenges. I think not as many as people would think,” he says. “Of course, most of the people I’ve advocated for directly are grassroots kinds of interests, and those are the kinds of interests I’m most interested in.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
The fact that Mr. Sirotkin is attached to Gun Sense Vermont, if widely reported, would serve Shumlin a hot potato. Appointing Sirotkin would be seen as a defacto Shumlin endorsement of gun control. Will be interesting to see what the Governor does, given his playing it safe at State of the State.
Our brain dead republican party has nobody even warming up to contest the election but if there’s any group that can instantly mobilize in this State, it’s gun owners.
Hmm, the Mayor of Montpelier call his firing Gwen Hallsmith because of her advocacy for Public Banking a red herring? When his clients include Bank of America and Wells Fargo? Really? Well, I call this email from The Mayor to the Town Manager of Montpelier a smoking gun:
https://docs.google.com/file/d…
Readers who catch themselves sympathizing with this reporter’s tale of “the burdens of being a misunderstood lobbyist” might watch a delightful movie antidote–Jason Reitman’s satire “Thank You for Smoking.” RottenTomatoes rank 87.
Aaron Eckhart plays Nick, who turned spinning news into a successful career for big tobacco, plotting strategies making its dangerous product appealing. His scenes explaining his work to his young son are a charming juxtapost on ethics. Given Jason’s witty, cynical script, Aaron delivers a brilliant, smarmy lead.
Reporters and lobbyists are paid to frame points of view that obscure the elephants in the room. Now that Sirotkin has honed his persuasion craft, I wonder where he will pledge his allegiance?
I’m hope it’s the “common benefits clause” of the Vermont Constitution:
“Government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community, and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons, who are a part only of that community.”
I just checked and Vermont has no Revolving door laws. While these laws prevent outgoing legislators from work as lobbyists for 1-2 years, not the issue at hand, it still seems to me we need to bring this up now. If Sirotkin represents Comcast, for example, do we really want him going back to work for them right afterwards? With the new problem of net neutrality being struck down by the big ISPs, this a major concern. It is difficult to believe he can divorce himself from his previous clients while in the legislature, but we certainly should be sure he does not work for them legally right after.
Great quote from John Hollar:
“I don’t see any ethical limitations or problems….”
To see ethical problems, all Hollar has to do
is look in the mirror.
Hollar’s conflict of interest is blatant —
and active —
he’s hired to represent private banks —
he attacks Gwen Hallsmith for promoting
public banking —
how much more obvious can a shill get?
Hollar’s March 19, 2013 email pressuring the city manager:
“To repeat myself ad nauseum, I still don’t see how our city’s chief economic development officer can hold and promote views that are fundamentally anti-capitalist in nature.â€
Here’s the story in more detail —
it paints a picture of Hollar being relentlessly “uninvolved”
until the city manager joins in the lynching:
http://readersupportednews.org…
Thinking about professionalism —
where is it in this piece
that gives John Hollar a chance for a cheapshot falsehood
but gives Gwen Hallsmith no chance at all to reply….
Amen to that,
which, if read with Scalia-like literal mindedness,
would support the notion that lobbying is unconstitutional
(except when it’s for the common benefit).
So how do you use “lobbyist” and “common benefit”
in a sentence that’s honest about both?
You’re right. The “common benefit” clause does seem inconsistent with lobbying, at first sight.
To use the language of the “common benefit” clause, we might define a lobbyist as an agent who is paid “for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons, who are a part only of that community.” If so, then by definition, a lobbyist cannot honestly pledge allegiance to the aims of the “common benefit” clause. Whether lobbying is unconstitutional under the “common benefits” clause is separate question.
But let me digress a moment and return to another notion, one that involves Mr. Sirotkin, the subject of the article. Couldn’t a former lobbyist, who has a set of persuasion skills, who has values that do not require continual increases in personal assets, and who is not now paid by any master, still have the capacity to honestly pledge allegiance to the aims of the “common benefit” clause? Under the definition above, I think so.
PS Have you read any “common benefit” cases, such as the riveting discourse in In re Town Highway 20? You can read it at http://info.libraries.vermont…..
It is further interesting that John Hollar’s opinion that Gwendolyn Hallsmith’s public banking issues are anti capitalistic and against the general goals of the city is contradicted by the fact that the city council agreed, 5 to 1, to put a public banking voters initiative on the annual meeting ballot. With several councilors speaking positively on the merits of public banking. Clearly, this subject is popular, and in the public good.
The story has repeatedly changed from the mayor, but as more and more evidence is uncovered, it is evident that the mayor, a paid lobbyist for the banking industry, was lobbying the city manager to silence Gwen’s public banking advocacy.
While the mayor has been vocal about her supposed conflict of interest, he has ignored at least one blatant conflict occuring on the planning commission, where a commissioner who owns property adjacent to property that they were trying to manipulate zoning around, refused to recuse themselves from the debate, despite those clear conflicts.
I would suggest that folks take the time to research this issue for themselves, as there is alot of misinformation being floated out there, that just doesn’t pass the sniff test, if you take the time to sniff.
DISCLOSURE: I AM A MEMBER OF THE MONTPELIER CONSERVATION COMMISSION, AN APPOINTED, VOLUNTEER POSITION. MY TERM EXPIRES SHORTLY, AND I AM UP FOR REAPPOINTMENT NEXT MONTH. THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED HERE ARE SOLELY MY OWN AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REPRESENT THE CITY OF MONTPELIER, OR THE COMMISSION.