Heroin Distribution and Procurement Corruption: The Vermont Experience

"Do you know the difference between education and experience? Education is when you read the fine print; experience is what you get when you don't."  Pete Seeger 1919-2014

This month, the Governor of Vermont, Peter Schumlin, made a very brave "State of the State" address, admitting Vermont has a problem - opiates, heroin and meth.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step in Vermont's program.    Thinking "it's a city problem" and we don't need treatment centers is a big mistake.

Another big mistake?  Unlike neighboring states, Vermont has no "procurement law".   It has a representative at BGS on National Association of State Purchasing Officials (NASPO.org).   But when Vermont's administration of it's "E-waste" contract was questioned - not just by the lower and more qualified (per ANR, not in dispute) bidder (me), but by the Solid Waste Districts (customers), and Superior Court Justice (in an injunction) Vermont ANR's response was to quash the FOIA request, and use a "calendar tactic" (redirecting the injunction to Environmental Court, adding a 7 month delay).  (For a reporters coverage of curious contract language written outside of the RFP for CWST, see this article in Vermont Digger, complete with changed signature dates.  Also see Vermont's refusal of the Freedom of Information Act Request at bottom of this blog).

If Vermont thinks it doesn't need a procurement law, like Massachusetts Chapter 30B, it's travelling down the same path as the heroin denial of the past decade.

Yeah, I love my job, and I'm proud of my work, but I'll have other opportunities if ANR's staff's stated objective - to replace Good Point Recycling - is carried out.  And yes, ANR's program manager actually SAID that prior to the RFP being issued (which by itself should have warned the state it needs procurement training).  David Mears, her boss, actually referred to "procurement laws" in defending the state's contracting with Casella (strategically hostile to the Manufacturer Independent Plan, to the point of possible anti-trust and flow control).

It's not a great position to be in, waiving a bloody shirt, crying over a lost bid and hostile regulators.   Why did I do it?  I did it in response to the letter below, from the wife of a subcontractor.  The real loser is the working class.

Good Morning Robin,

I am Harry XXXXs wife, remember he works [nonprofit subcontractor]? I have taken this way out step to contact you because for 5 years now I have constantly had this thought that will not leave me alone that Harry should be working for you. As you probably know Harry at home created a program that can wipe and refurbish up to 50 computers at a time. Harry is also a Linux person, that is recognized around the world and becoming more popular every year. He installs Linux on PC'S that have a tag that is destroyed so Microsoft does not recognize it.

My thought Robin, if you and Harry could see a future in working together, Harry could refurbish your product here at our home. He would still work for XXXX, but in my heart I feel your business would be the best for Harry's

future. Harry is responsible, honest and quiet unless you get him going, then he can tell jokes like no one else, a team player.

I had hopes that you would have had more to do with [our nonprofit] I felt it would have been a good thing. Maybe you could stop in the store on XXX St. in XXX, Vermont, and just look around. No one knows I am writing you, XXX loves what he does and I have felt with your business mind, could be a winning partnership.

Thank you for your consideration on this matter.

Helen XXXX

9 South XXXX St.

XXXXX, Vt. 05XXX

Vermont's Heart

The Governor of Vermont, Peter Schumlin, wants environmental jobs, and wants R2 certification, and wants to wear a white hat.   But he knows he has a problem at the Agency of Natural Resources.   The Agency is protecting itself by using the very line of appeals to clog an Environmental Court docket, essentially shielding itself from bid challenges.

Dead Reckoning 5 : Inside the Risk Aversion Box (Jessica Olien / Slate)

Good article.   Bosses don't encourage underlings to think outside the box.  

 Studies confirm what many creative people have suspected all along: People are biased against creative thinking, despite all of their insistence otherwise.

Having dealt with it for years, I think it's a little more complex than a general native tendency, however. A large packet of society defers decisions (outsources) to a higher authority. Those authorities demand structure to order the size of the authority delegated to them, and tend to view "outliers" collectively as a threat to that order. The hostility to creativity is particularly intense when the question is "moral authority". In science, the "out of the box" thinker has scientific method and an option or hope to "prove" or "demonstrate" their alternative, creative, view. In religion, a creative morality is considered a threat but it's very difficult to demonstrate credibility with anything other than generations of experience (I did X, which the Priestatollah said not to, and no hair on my palms etc).

Cross culture is unfamiliar, by definition, and unfamiliar is risky.  People will tend to outsource authority, and authority will keep order by creating simple rules around things like culture, race, and language.

Where science is vulnerable is when a morality is attached. I'm not advocating for scientists to be immoral. But certain branches of science (e.g. Environmental) are susceptible to moral authority, which makes them more susceptible to Priestatollahs opposing creative thinking.

This is about risk aversion, cognitive risk, and perception of risks.   When a large group delegates authority, it doesn't need to know all the complicated stuff.   But when the complicated stuff is actually also over the head of the regulator (or moral regulator), the regulator feels risk of losing control or losing authority and tries to simplify.  

This is what is going on at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.  

The 2011 Cornell University paper is actually pretty short.

The Bias Against Creativity: Why People Desire But Reject Creative Ideas

Jennifer S. Mueller - University of Pennsylvania

Shimul Melwani - University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Jack A. Goncalo - Cornell University

Read the previous posts about our instinct to nurture, or externalized perceived risk.   Like Parents who think internet is dangerous, or dictators who think internet is dangerous, or E-Stewards who think trade with six billion people, in geographies as diverse as Lima, Penang, Soweto, Accra, Karachi, and Sonora, should be restricted via a simple moral rule (Basel Convention Amendment).