Democratic gubernatorial candidate Matt Dunne on Friday sought to tie rival Sue Minter to a pair of Northeast Kingdom developers accused of defrauding hundreds of foreign investors.
Dunne’s campaign sent reporters a copy of a sole-source contract Minter signed with one of the developers, Ariel Quiros, to operate Newport State Airport, which has since been renamed Northeast Kingdom International Airport. The January 2015 document was inked shortly after Minter took over as Gov. Peter Shumlin’s secretary of transportation.
In an open letter to Minter, Dunne noted that Quiros and business partner Bill Stenger had already come under state scrutiny at the time. Fifteen months later, in April 2016, federal and state authorities filed civil charges against the pair, accusing them of misusing more than $200 million raised through the federal EB-5 investor visa program.
“Why did you believe that it was appropriate to sign a state contract with Ariel Quiros after concerns had been raised about his business practices?” Dunne wrote in his letter to Minter.
In a statement provided to Seven Days, Minter argued that the $54,400 contract had been negotiated by her predecessor, former transportation secretary Brian Searles, and was in keeping with best practices. She called Dunne’s letter a “Washington-style” attack.
“I am sorry to see my opponent resort to this kind of baseless, negative politics,” Minter wrote. “This is not how we operate in Vermont.”
The episode marked a significant shift in a race that had previously remained positive and policy-focused. Dunne distributed the contract and his open letter to the media on Friday afternoon, just 11 days before the August 9 Democratic primary. He did so less than an hour after publicly revising his position on wind-energy siting — a reversal that drew immediate condemnation from renewable energy proponents.
In his letter, Dunne did not explicitly accuse Minter of wrongdoing. But he asked pointedly whether his opponent was aware, at the time she signed the contract, of internal administration concerns about the men. He also questioned whether it was appropriate to award the contract without a competitive bidding process.
“If you had concerns about the contract or the related contracting process, what did you do at the time to raise them?” Dunne wrote.
According to Minter’s successor, Transportation Secretary Chris Cole, such contracts are “standard practice.”
For more than a decade, Lakeview Aviation served as the fixed-base operator for the Newport facility, Cole said, providing management and maintenance services to the state-owned airport. In 2013, Quiros’ Q Resorts “expressed interest” in taking over the contract so that it could build a $20 million terminal, Cole said.
But, he continued, the Agency of Transportation “was uncomfortable with [Q Resorts] running the airport because the company did not have experience in that type of business.” So Q subcontracted with Lakeview Aviation to continue serving as Newport’s fixed-base operator.
“From the state’s perspective, nothing in terms of maintenance and operation would change — since the FBO on the ground would be the same one that had been in place for over a decade — but there would be opportunity for significant investments in the airport,” Cole said.
Therefore, he argued, it was entirely appropriate for the state to renew the agreement without a competitive bidding process. Searles, under whom Minter served as deputy secretary, signed a state contract request form in August 2014. Minter, who took over the agency the following January, signed the final version of the contract that month.
The airport expansion was intended to support Quiros’ and Stenger’s developments at Jay Peak Resort, Burke Mountain Resort and in downtown Newport. Unlike those projects, the airport initiative was to be funded by private investment and a federal grant, not money raised through the EB-5 program. The developers completed a runway expansion, but much of the rest of the project — including a passenger terminal and airplane assembly plant — were abandoned after federal and state authorities intervened in April.
In her response to Dunne, Minter said she was “proud of my record” at the agency.
“I am the candidate with the plan to make Vermont work, and I look forward to debating Matt on issues like economic opportunity, college affordability, or clean water and clean energy, but not on Washington-style attacks,” she said.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Regardless of who wrote the contract or why, it was definitely a mistake to sign a no-bid agreement with Ariel Quiros after the administration had seen (plenty of) red flags…
Quite honestly it’s embarrassing that stuff like this keeps coming out and revealing the continued series of missteps the Shumlin administration made with regards to the EB-5 program.
This is deeply disconcerting. The fact that the Administration was already investigating Quiros and Sue decided to sign the contract anyways citing best practices is enough for me to question if I should vote for her or not. This is a huge error in judgment. Hiding behind the fact that the previous Secretary signed the contract does not pass the smell test. As Secretary, Sue was responsible for these efforts and if something was wrong — she should not have signed it. Period. The fact that they had another company sub-contract is even more distressing.
The more I read about this, the more I feel that Sue is simply not up to the task of being Governor. Which is sad to me. Coupled with her checkered statements on wind energy and now this, I feel bad but I don’t believe I can support Sue Minter moving forward.
Trump Dunn. It appears that Matt Dunn now knows that he is behind in the race for Governor; thus he has decided to try The Donald’s approach to campaigning. As Chris Cole has pointed out, the contract signed by Sue Minter was simply the renewal of the contract that had been in place for years. The contract was to continue the services that had been provided by the operator who had provided them. There is no EB-5 issue here.
I get why the press and opponents might call this “negative”, but there are not negative claims here. Just questions. That’s what we’re all supposed to do – ask questions to better understand the decisions that candidates have made. Clearly this was a bad one and a tough one to now explain – so label it “Negative” and then attack your opponent for “Washington tactics” – taken from a very old playbook.
I don’t think I’m satisfied with the response we’re hearing – basically its not her fault because this is how its been done before? She didn’t write the deal, she just signed it?
Well, I guess this explains the two lengthy polling calls I got (from a company in Idaho) in the spring and summer.
Both calls (the first more than 30 minutes, the second around 20) were largely extensive testing of negative messages against the various candidates running in the Democratic primary. (“Would you be more or less likely to vote for Sue Minter if you knew that…..”) The airport question was featured prominently in each of those polls. (As were others that don’t appear to have been featured in the ads… things like – paraphrased “Would you be more or less likely to vote for Sue Minter if you knew that she had less of a role in Irene recovery than she has publicly claimed?”)
At the time I guessed – based on the tone and focus of the questions, that it was from the Dunne campaign exploring possible messages for the primary. The second call seemed to focus more on potential anti-Minter messages and asked less about Galbraith or Dunne.
Sounds like the Dunne campaign has been planning this for a long time, and spent some money polling to figure out which attack would be more effective with voters.
I’m currently neutral in the Democratic primary, but not happy about any of the candidates engaging in this kind of attack on the others. We should expect better.
I may be under the psychological influence of over exposure to Hillary, but I just don’t like the way Sue Minter makes me feel. Both she and Dunne look like they can both kick some major butt and neither is particularly likable, which can be a plus for governing effectively. It’s gonna be Dunne for me, his campaign reflects good management and forward thinking that is badly needed in Montpelier. Sorry Sue, no excuse for getting in bed with Quiros. None.
If I had just taken a job with a lot of authority and was handed a contract that, I was also told, was negotiated, written and approved by the department I was now heading all I might have done differently than Minter was check with my boss, the governor, to see if there were any new objections. She claims to have read the contract and found nothing amiss with its contents. No one has inferred that there was. If the governor was OK with the contract, and she couldn’t provide specific and serious reasons to show why it was a bad contract, it would have been very bad form, especially given the fact that she was new on the job, to arbitrarily blow him off and exercise her authority to not sign it. I also haven’t heard if the signing of the contract has resulted in any losses for the state. I’m not saying that Dunne should not have brought this up but he should have done so in a much more grounded and politic manner. This does come across like an immature campaign tactic.
Dunne campaign— tut tut. You’re going down a road you can’t come back from.
This is not an attack. This is a simple list of legitimate questions waiting to be answered.
It seems to me that this publication has a bias against Dunne, as evidenced by the past week’s headlines. It’s everything short of a Minter endorsement. Take a look:
In Negative Turn, Dunne Ties Minter to EB-5 Scandal
Environmentalist Bill McKibben Dumps Dunne for Minter
Dunne Snags Sanders Campaign Manager’s Endorsement
Dunne’s New Wind Stance Draws Criticism — and Surprising Praise
Even when sevendaysvt writes about events that reflect positively on Dunne, they manage to add a touch of negativity. Notice the contrast between “Dunne Snags Sanders Campaign Manager’s Endorsement” and “Howard Dean Endorses Sue Minter for Governor.” Using the word “snag” weakens Jeff Weavers endorsement and shows bias. On the other hand the headline about Howard Dean’s endorsement is purely factual.
In this article, it is evident that Terri Hallenbeck sides with Sue. She ends the article with a strong quote by Sue, labeling Matt’s open letter as a “Washington-style attack.” Additionally Hallenbeck bashes Matt for an issue unrelated to the article. She writes Matt Dunne sent the open letter “after publicly revising his position on wind-energy siting—a reversal that drew immediate condemnation from renewable energy proponents.” Why would Hallenbeck bring this up, if not to throw more shade in Matt’s direction? If you explore Matt’s position, he strongly supports wind-energy as long as windmill installations aren’t at the expense of voiceless Vermont communities. However Hallenbeck didn’t mention that.
In the future I hope to see more professional journalism.