Bragdon still doesn't get it. He's still the elephant in the room. As a senator his colleagues will still be prone to defer to him. And as head of the Local Government Center (LGC) he has inside knowledge of senators and representatives that can help the LGC smooth their relationship with their regulators.
There are still only two options for Bragdon. Resign from the senate or don't take the job with the LGC. Anything else is a conflict. This is much more complicated than a senator promising not to have anything to do with the lobbying arm of the organization he will be leading.
Here's a probable scenario. The LGC needs (or wants) changes to state laws that effects their business. When Bragdon discusses this with other employees or the Board of Directors he has inside knowledge of what is and isn't palatable to his colleagues in the Senate. Bragdon can and will use that inside knowledge to help craft a remedy for the LGC's problems. Inside knowledge that isn't available to the public. Inside knowledge that gives him an advantage that very few people have.
So as long as he remains in the Senate he can't act without conflict even if he recuses himself. That elephant in the room is always there and always influencing his actions and those of his colleagues.
This was the reason Board chairman Thomas Enright gave for hiring Bragdon as quoted from an August 14, Concord Monitor article by Ben Leubsdorf:
In hiring Bragdon, Volinsky said, the LGC picked a politician rather than “a legitimate health insurance executive.” But Enright said he’s not concerned about Bragdon’s lack of experience in that field.
“He’s trying to work us out of a quagmire and allow us to have a better relationship with our regulator. That’s what we’re focused on,” Enright said.
So who do we believe here? Enright or Bragdon. And if Bragdon isn't going to be involved in regulatory matters than why was he hired?
It is clear from Enright's statement that Bragdon was hired to smooth the LGC's relationship with the Secretary of State's office and the Bureau of Securities Regulation (BSR). And I can tell you that there are only two ways that relationship will get any better for the LGC. The LGC needs to either comply with the hearing officers final order or change the laws related to managed risk pools.
The LGC in pursuing their appeal of the final order to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, has made it clear they are not willing to abide by the final order. And if the LGC continues to lobby to change RSA 5B, Bragdon - again - can't remove himself from that process without removing himself from the Senate.
And if I'm reading the tea leaves correctly there is no chance that democrats and principled republicans in the House, will be entertaining any changes to RSA 5B that will lessen the LGC's responsibilities to their members. The only recommendations that are likely to come from the study committee will be to make sure there is sufficient oversight from the BSR to insure the LGC can't and won't take advantage of their members again.
So let's hope that even though Bragdon didn't get it right the first two times that he gets it right by either resigning from the Senate or the LGC before he strikes out and is sent to the bench by the only umpire that matters. And that is public opinion. Because a perceived conflict is a real conflict. And if Bragdon doesn't believe me he only needs to ask the legislative ethics committee instead of the lawyer representing the ten towns suing the LGC.
And Richard Lehmann the Senate counsel and lawyer for the ten towns suing the LGC has his own set of conflicts that he needs to address. But that's a blog for another day.
