ALBANY, N.Y.-In Molly Gray's first campaign for Vermont lieutenant governor, I met her briefly at a meet-and-greet in a Bennington coffee shop. After listening to her remarks, I introduced myself as Thomas Joseph, the whistleblower whose disclosures led to a three-year criminal fraud investigation of the Brattleboro Retreat beginning in 2015.
As soon as I identified myself, Molly Gray indicated she was late for another event. I handed her my card and asked her to call when she had time. She never did.
Earlier this year, I learned that Gov. Phil Scott had nominated former U.S. Attorney of Vermont Christina Nolan to the Vermont Supreme Court, subject to review by the Senate Judiciary Committee and a full vote of the Vermont Senate. Years earlier, I had provided Ms. Nolan with extensive evidence of commercial insurance losses - over $500,000 worth. Based on that experience, I believed lawmakers should be aware of her unwillingness to enforce the law without fear or favor.
Although I was living in my native New York state at the time, I called the office of Vermont Lt. Gov. John Rodgers, who presides over the Senate, to ask about opportunities for public testimony. I left a voicemail, and a short time later received a return call from John Rodgers himself.
When we connected, he listened carefully, allowed me the time needed to explain my role in the Brattleboro Retreat matter, and offered to reach out to members of the Senate. Over the following weeks, he remained gracious and responsive despite his demanding schedule assisting constituents.
After years of sacrifice and dealing with officials more interested in concealing fraud than confronting it, John Rodger's willingness to listen meant a great deal.
My experiences with Molly Gray and John Rodgers were starkly different. I hope my sharing them helps Vermonters make a more informed decision about which candidate is more likely to respect them - and return their call.
Thomas Joseph
Albany, N.Y.
This letter to the editor was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.