In this week’s “Fair Game,” State Auditor Tom Salmon demonstrated his way with words. I had queried him about an email sent from his office, welcoming Sen. Ed Flanagan into the auditor’s race.
Using state computers for political business is not allowed, as is spelled out in the state’s personnel manual and other administrative bulletins.
In fact, last year Salmon ran afoul of state regs by allowing a state staffer use a taxpayer-bought camcorder to videotape a political fundraising speech in Burlington.
Salmon’s response to my email?
Fuck off
Immaterial
I’m wasting more state time on your political bullshit
Clever. Several more well-placed syllables would have netted Salmon a nice little Haiku.
After receiving this email on Monday, I responded to Salmon with this email:
Tom,
I asked the same question of Katie Manaras back in April 2008 when she sent a political note for Peter Shumlin from his state email account congratulating House Speaker Gaye Symington’s entrance into the governor’s race, and of Dennise Casey later that year after she left the Douglas administration and was a campaign worker and was using her state-issued ID badge to get to the fifth floor after hours.
But, thanks for the frank response.
Shay
He then responded with an even longer response, in which he calls me “son,” suggests I’m an “unadulterated hypocrite” and that I “find out what the hell you were put on earth for.”
My editors and I decided we should post this email exchange in its entirety. Here is what he wrote in response to my reply:
Look son, you need to get very clear on something. You and I once had a personal relationship that was forming with a good batch of sincerity. It was ruined by the way you reported the handling of my financial troubles and mischaracterizations (being dragged into court, etc) that never occurred, and many many years of struggle that you didn’t think were germane that may have balanced the story. So what, right?
I believe that you love Vermont and you love your family, and I wish you the best. However, the way you have been acting toward our office with disregard for the work that we do, more inclined to ask political or personal questions, is unacceptable. So that is where the Fuck off derives from.
I am tempted to run a press release about Vermont’s hidden waste: Reporter requests that have no basis for productive news. Or would that be considered campaigning? You tied our time up today on questions about the survey- what day? How are you using that? For who? (When it starts with Dear Legislator?) You’ve riddled my deputy with extensive questions about our budget trying to catch me in a lie from my Nov 20 speech? You have asked about the number 5 license plate which is probably hanging in Randy’s barn? (I never exercised my option for that) and the report could go on.
So, for you to tie up our state time today, then jump on the news release about issues affecting the state’s accountability office in a blurb that was 5 minute cut- paste-send exercise, is the work of an unadulterated hypocrite. You get to prance around and be a “political columnist” but are expected to taken as a serious journalist? You get to ask questions of our office that are politically motivated- or by your personal agenda- and we are expected to answer them with a straight face?
You may be looking to get me to help you sell papers. It’s too bad you have pissed on all the capital you had with me, for both of us. Why? Because it’s too bad you and I do not collaborate on getting productive word to citizens (and that would make public service or reporting more noble professions). I’m serving Vermont to improve the lives of others. Why do you do what you do?
I hope you figure what the hell you were put on earth for………….cause this ain’t it. You are better than this, son.
TMS
To be clear, I didn’t “riddle” his deputy with questions. From April 12 through Monday, I sent Deputy Auditor Joe Juhasz eight emails. Six were related to the auditor’s budget and two asked about a legislative survey Salmon distributed to lawmakers.
The reason I sent eight emails related to the auditor’s budget is due to the fact that Juhasz never fully responded to my requests about the auditor’s budget. Actually, it took four attempts to get Juhasz to provide the detail that was originally requested. I had asked not just how much the office paid out in salaries for FY 2009, 2010 and 2011, but also which funds were used to cover those costs.
The original request was made April 12, but it wasn’t until April 28 that I received the information. Once I saw the financial details, I wanted to ask a follow-up question. After all, that’s my job.
This article appears in May 12-18, 2010.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
“There are sections the rule I posted that do cover political activity, not just campaigning.”Really? Because I’m looking at that section right now, and I think you posted the whole “prohibited activities” section. Maybe you can post the verbage you’re referring to, which was apparently what you meant to send Salmon, because with respect to Salmon’s email, it would seem that what you emailed back to him was in fact “immaterial.”One part you didn’t post was:”PERMITTED ACTIVITIESAn employee may:…2. Freely express his or her opinions on all political subjects and candidates.”Re: Casey, are campaign workers not allowed into that building after hours, or did Douglas have the ability to grant her that access and decide not to bother for whatever reason?
@Jimmy: There are sections the rule I posted that do cover political activity, not just campaigning. This rule is just one of several that govern the activity of public employees.As for Dennise Casey: No, she was not issued a separate ID after she left state employ and while on the campaign, which would link her transgression to the former, not the latter.
I don’t understand. When Mr. Salmon was shaking hands with me at our 4th of July parade in Stowe (back when he was first running for the auditor position), he was telling me what a proud Democrat he was and how he wanted to emulate his father’s legacy.Now, it seems he is a Republican with a foul mouth who is taking the state for a ride with his ambitions while running his dad’s good name into the ground. Wow.And his assistant gets close to 90 K a year? Sign me up as the assistant’s assistant! Only a Republican could love government so much that to tame it you have to make it bigger. Ha!
@Joseph Kennedy:”Money over substance.”To which Vermont journalists do you believe this applies? I can’t think of any that have a realistic shot at making any kind of money grab, here or anywhere else, and I think they all know it. So what “money” are we talking about, and how exactly does it trump “substance?”More to the point, journalists who have no concept of “on and off the record” do far more to limit your access to information than those who misguidedly attempt to be “puppets” and “mouthpieces” (although, again… who is that around here, exactly?) Successful journalists acquire far more information when they understand that there is a line, and do their level best not to cross it. It’s not about being pals with your subject, it’s about fostering a mutual respect that results in on-the-record openness.
“The rules pertain to political activity, not just active campaigning.”I don’t see that in the section you posted. It says “Campaign.” It also only references presence on State property, not “the use of a state employee and a state email.”re: Casey, I’m asking whether she was issued a pass prior to Douglas’ reelection but after she wasn’t working for the state. In other words, was her transgression entering the building when she really shouldn’t have been, or just that she used the wrong piece of plastic?
@ Jimmy: The rules pertain to political activity, not just active campaigning.As for Dennise Casey, are you asking if she was issued an ID badge after being rehired by the governor post-reelection? The answer is yes. Whether it was the same (old) ID, or a new one, I don’t know for sure.
So does the email really rise to the level of “campaigning?” Are you sure it was sent from State property? Or do you see a violation of something other than number 6 in your list?I see nothing in Section 5.7 referring to “the use of a state employee and a state email” as relates to the email that went out.Also, I was actually asking whether Dennise Casey was eventually issued a “different pass.”
@ Jimmy: My initial email was a question, and I’m happy to share. It wasn’t all that much of an email. One sentence followed by an excerpt from the state employee personnel manual.* * * How is the use of a state employee and a state email justifiable when according to the state personnel manual: Section 5.7PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES An employee may not: 1. Use his or her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the nomination or election or any candidate for public office. 2. Directly or indirectly command, solicit in a coercive fashion, or advise any other employee to participate in any political activity. 3. Directly or indirectly solicit in a coercive fashion, command or advise any other employee to pay, lend, or contribute money or anything of value to a political party, candidate, committee, organization, agency or person for political purposes. 4. Participate in national, state, or local community activities or hold public office in the local community in which the employee resides if such activity would be a conflict of interest under the provisions of Section 3.01, et. seq., of the Rules and Regulations for Personnel Administration, or the Hatch Act. (Also see Section 5.1, Conflict of Interest Policy in this manual.) 5. Participate in the above referenced activities even if the employee is on sick leave, annual leave, leave of absence without pay, or other authorized leave. 6. Campaign in or on State property, both during and after working hours.
BTW I was just pointing out that you reprinted some emails in the exchange, and simply described others. So the initial email you sent him was a “response” and not a question posed for reporting purposes?
As an employee of Douglas’, was she eventually issued a pass to get into his office? It seems logical that she would, since she was entering his office with his permission.So she either used a DIFFERENT PASS than the one she was supposed to use, or just had to stick to going to his office during the day. Either way, it’s pretty clear that she said “whoops” and still wasn’t given the buried-half-sentence treatment.