Bragdon & Now Forrester Caught up in LGC Ethical Quagmire

The instance Peter Bragdon decided to apply for the job of executive director at the Local Government Center (LGC) any discussions he had, decisions and actions he took that were related to the LGC or could effect the LGC were tainted.

Bragdon had already sent a draft resume to the LGC when he spoke with the Senate’s chief of staff Jay Flanders and Senator Jeanie Forrester regarding conflicts that he may have from serving both in the Senate President’s position and as that of executive director of the LGC. This is after Bragdon has stated that he decided to appoint Senator Forrester to the study committee reviewing the hearing officers final report in the administrative case the state brought against the LGC. 

So once again the question that needs to be answered is why did Bragdon forego asking the legislative ethics committee for an advisory ruling before pursing the job at the LGC? And why did he instead ask for advice from the Senate's chief of staff and a senator he had already decided to appoint to a study committee, to review the administrative order that ruled against the LGC. The committee that will be making recommendations to change or amend the law effecting managed risk pools like the LGC.

It was originally reported that Bald approached Bragdon in a joking manner about taking the executive directors job at the LGC. Yet in emails obtained by the Nashua Telegraph we now find out that Bragdon sent a draft resume to the LGC less then an hour after that original meeting.

So now there is a real conundrum. The problem is what to do with the appointment of Senator Forrester to the study committee. Bragdon states that he made the decision to appoint Forrester, a republican on July 5, the same day the bill to establish the study committee got to his desk.  But on July 8, Senator Saucy a democrat asked to be considered for the study committee. 

As reported in the August 21, Nashua Telegraph article by Kevin Landrigan:

According to Bragdon, his common practice was to make decisions about study committee assignments when he officially signed those bills and would at a later point announce those decisions.

Bragdon’s official letter to Forrester naming her to the panel came July 19, eight days after Bragdon has confirmed he first thought about pursuing the LGC job.

So regardless of what Bragdon says and regardless that it is reported that Senator Forrester received a phone call from Bragdon before July 11, (when he was approached about the LGC job) that she would be appointed to the study committee, the written record shows that Forrester’s appointment wasn’t announced until July 19, eight days after Bragdon showed an interest in pursuing the LGC position.

It seemed clear to me (at the legislative hearing) by the questions Senator Forrester asked that she was sympathetic to some of the issues plaguing the LGC.  She appeared to be supportive of the LGC’s position for retaining surplus in order to reduce year to year rate fluctuations. However municipalities have the ability to set up their own funds to draw from to reduce fluctuations in taxes for specific expenses. And the LGC had an opportunity to negotiate with the Bureau of Securities Regulation (BSR) but the LGC’s counsel never returned calls to work out a compromise - as I wrote in a previous blog.

So as it stands now the only option the LGC has now is to return surplus in the form of a cash payment at the end of each year to their members.

So where does this leave us? Bragdon still has to go. He is still (pick one) the gorilla, elephant in the room. Senators first thoughts when reviewing RSA 5-B (the state statute that regulates managed risk pools) will be how does this effect Peter Bragdon’s LGC, not how does this effect the municipalities who are members of the LGC.

And their first thoughts whenever taking up issues related to managed care pools and the LGC in particular will be how does this impact Peter’s company.

Senator Forrester must also step down as her appointment is tainted. We know now that Senator Donna Soucy asked Bragdon to consider appointing her to the study committee on July 8. Three days after Bragdon claims he had already decided to appoint Forrester. Yet it isn’t until July 19, that Forrester receives a letter from Bragdon confirming her appointment, eight days after Bragdon expressed an interest in working for the LGC.

Once Bragdon had decided to pursue a job with the LGC, he should have recused himself from all senate business related to the LGC. He didn’t and that is why this is an ethical quagmire.