YCQM: September 23, 2012 - WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-

YCQM: September 23, 2012

Posted: Updated:
BURLINGTON, Vt. -

>>> GOOD MORNING, THANKS FOR JOINING US, I'M KRISTEN CARLSON. OUR NEWSMAKER IS DOUG HOFFER, DEMOCRAT RUNNING FOR STATE AUDITOR. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I SHOULD SAY THAT LAST WEEK OUR GUEST WAS VINCE ILLUZI, THE RB RUN -- THE RUN RUNNING AGAINST YOU.

>> WHY ARE YOU RUNNING?

>> FOR THE SAME REASON I RAN IN 2010. I THINK IT IS TRUE FOR EVERYONE THAT WORKS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT THE REASON THEY DO IT IS TO TRY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND MAKE A CONTRIBUTION, AND I THINK I'VE BEEN QUITE FORTUNATE. I THINK I HAVE MADE A CONTRIBUTION. HAVING SAID THAT, IT IS CLEAR THAT IF I AM SUCCESSFUL AND GET A CHANCE TO BE A STATE AUDITOR, I CAN MAKE A GREATER CONTRIBUTION.

>> IF YOU WERE TO WIN, WHAT WOULD THE FIRST AUDIT BE?

>> WELL, YOU HAVE TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF WHAT IS ALREADY IN THE PIPELINE. THE FIRST AUDIT, YOU MEAN, I PRESUME, OF MY CHOICE?

>> EXACTLY. AND WHAT DO YOU SEE AS ONE OF THE MOST PRESSING ISSUES NOT CURRENTLY BEING DONE BY THE STATE AUDITOR THAT YOU WOULD, IF ELECTED, TACKLE?

>> A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT INTEREST ME. I WOULD LIKE TO GET THEM STARTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. ONE IS TO LOOK AT WHAT ARE CALLED PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS. ALL OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE STATE, NOT GOODS SOLD TO THE STATE, BUT SERVICES. THAT CAN RANGE FROM THE FOLKS WHO MACK THE PENSION -- MANAGE THE PENSION FUND MONIES OR MANAGE MEDICAID PAYMENTS FOR THE STATE. AND THERE'S A LOT OF -- BUT IT'S GOTTEN TO BE $300 MILLION. IT IS A LOT OF MONEY AND A LOT OF CONTRACTS. AND BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT WORKING UNDER DIRECT STATE SUPERVISION, IT'S WORTHWHILE, AND I THINK NECESSARY TO PERIODICALLY TAKE A LOOK. IT'S BIG MONEY. AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE PART OF THE CYCLE AND IT HASN'T HASN'T BEEN UNDER THIS PARTICULAR AUDITOR. SECOND, I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT THE TAX DEPARTMENT FOR ONE REASON. CLEARLY, THERE IS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ALWAYS ABOUT THE FLAY TOUR OF OUR TAX SYSTEM. -- NATURE OF OUR TAX SYSTEM. THAT'S A POLICY MATTER. ONCE THOSE ARE DECIDED THE WAYS THAT WE ARE GOING TO RAISE MONEY, THE QUESTION IS ARE ARE WE GETTING ALL THAT'S EXPECTED. AND THE IRS REPORTS PERIODICALLY ON THE FACT THAT THERE'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT IS NOT CAPTURED BY THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS. AS YOU WOULD IMAGINE, THERE ARE PEOPLE, UNFORTUNATELY, WHO LOOK FOR WAYS TO SHELTER MONEY THAT ARE NOT QUITE LEGAL. SO AT A TIME WHEN THE STATE IS LOOKING UNDER ROCKS FOR MONEY, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF PROGRAMS UNDER PRESSURE AND WE NEED EVERYTHING WE CAN FIND, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO FIND OUT IF THE TAX DEPARTMENT IS IS IN FACT DOING ALL THEY CAN FOR COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT. AND I THINK IF WE WERE GIVEN MORE RESOURCES IN THAT REGARD A COUPLE YEARS AGO. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HOW THEY ARE DOING. I HAVE A CONTINUING INTEREST IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS, IT'S SOMETHING I'VE WORKED ON ON MY OWN FOR YEARS, SO I THINK BETWEEN THOSE, THAT WOULD KEEP US BUSY.

>> YOU MENTIONED PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT QUITE A BIT, THE EMPLOYEES UNION HAD CONCERNS THERE. THEY ALSO THOUGHT THERE COULD BE SOME SAVINGS. $300 MILLION. HOW MUCH SAVINGS COULD BE THERE, GIVEN THAT IF SOMEONE HAS TO DO THIS WORK, WHETHER IT IS A STATE EMPLOYEE, SOMEHOW THIS WORK HAS TO BE DONE.

>> NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. SOME OF IT IS BEING DONE AFTER OUTSOURCING, ALTHOUGH I CAN'T SAY HOW MUCH. WE'VE LOST A NUMBER OF JOBS IN THE LAST FIVE OR SIX YEARS FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. I THINK THEY ARE DOWN 5 OR 600 OR MORE. AND THERE WAS AN OUTSOURCING MOVE BEFORE THAT. AS TO HOW MUCH COULD BE SAVED, YOU KNOW, I AM NOT IN THE GUESSING GAME. THE ROLE OF AN AUDITOR IS TO DO THE WORK AND GIVE YOU FINDINGS AFTER THE FACT, NOT BEFOREHAND. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT.

>> YOU MUST THINK THERE MIGHT BE SAVINGS AVAILABLE THERE, IF YOU ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT.

>> IT IS NOT JUST THE DOLLARS. ALSO LOOKING AT, INTERESTED IN PERFORMANCE. YOU KNOW, STATE EMPLOYEES ARE SUPERVISED BY OTHER STATE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ACCOUNTABLE. NOW, TECHNICALLY, OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU ARE UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE STATE, THERE IS A HIERARCHY, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ACCOUNTABLE. I AM JUST NOT SURE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THAT ACCOUNTABILITY IS THE SAME IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR AS IT IS WITH STATE EMPLOYEES.

>> RUNNING UNDER THE DEMOCRAT/PROGRESSIVE LABEL, HOW DID YOU CHOOSE THAT LABEL, AND HOW MUCH OF A ROLE DOES PARTY PLAY FOR STATE AUDITOR?

>> WELL, THE SECOND QUESTION FIRST, I THINK IT PLAYS A BIG ROLE IN ANY STATEWIDE RACE. IF YOU HAVE A D AFTER YOUR NAME IN A BLUE STATE, YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE GOING IN. I THINK THAT'S FAIR TO SAY HERE, ESPECIALLY IN A PRESIDENTIAL YEAR, AT LEAST THAT'S MY HOPE AND YOU ASSUMPTION, AS TO WHY I DID IT, I THINK PART OF THIS IS -- IT IS JUST VERY PRACTICABLE. COMING INTO THIS, I CAME TO VERMONT IN 88 TO WORK IN CITY HALL IN BURLINGTON. SOME PEOPLE GIVEN MY BACKGROUND IN CITY HALL, WHICH WAS FIVE YEARS OUT OF 24, ASSOCIATE KNEE WITH PROGRESSIVE: I AM NOT A SHIEMD OF THAT -- ASHAMED OF THAT. BUT I WORKED WITH DEMOCRATS IN THE LEGISLATURE, I WORKED WITH IN FACT THE CHAIR OF THE SENATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, A REPUBLICAN, I WORKED WOULD ANYBODY WHO WANTED TO ADVANCE THE SAME GOALS THEY SHARED WITH ME. SO I HAVEN'T BEEN IN ELECTORAL POLITICS BEFORE THIS RACE TWO YEARS AGO, AND IT WAS A PRACTICAL MATTER, AND I SHARE MANY OF THE VALUES WITH DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE PROGRESSIVE PARTY AND I THINK IT JUST MADE SENSE.

>> SOME PEOPLE MAY WONDER, THOUGH, MR. HOFFER, ARE YOU A PROGRESSIVE OR A DEMOCRAT?

>> I DON'T SEE THE OFFICE AS PARTISAN AT ALL, TO BE FRANK. IT IS ABOUT THE NUMBERS. IT IS ABOUT THE WORK. AND THAT'S WHAT MY WORK HAS BEEN FOR THESE 19 YEARS, WORKING ON MY OWN, AND IN FACT, I THINK THAT'S WHY I HAVE THE REPUTATION THAT I DO, THAT I LET THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES AND NEVER GO BEYOND THE DATA.

>> WHY NOT RUN AS AN INDEPENDENT?

>> IF THAT'S THE CASE?

>> WELL, I AM NOT AN INDEPENDENT, I AM A DEMOCRAT AND A PROGRESSIVE.

>> WELL, THEN BACK TO MY QUESTION. ARE YOU A DEMOCRATIC OR A PROGRESSIVE. YOU SAID --

>> THE JOB IS NOT PARTISAN.

>> RIGHT. THAT'S CLEAR.

>> I GUESS I'M ASKING YOU ARE YOU -- DO YOU IDENTIFY AS A DEMOCRAT OR A PROGRESSIVE?

>> BOTH.

>> WHAT DO YOU THINK IS SIMILAR ABOUT THE TWO? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT PARTIES.

>> THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT PARTIES THAT SHARE A HISTORY AND A LOT OF VALUES, AND ALSO A LOT OF THE SAME GOALS. THEY ARE BOTH WORKING FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, THEY ARE BOTH WORKING TO -- NOT ELIMINATE, BUT REDUCE INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE STATE, TACKLE POVERTY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND MANY OF THE SAME ISSUES.

>> YOU MENTIONED THEY HAVE MANY OF THE SAME ISSUES. DO YOU THINK THE PROGRESSIVE PARTY HAS A ROLE IN THE STATE, OR SHOULD THEY MERGE WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IF THEY SHARE MANY OF THE SAME IDEALS?

>> THAT'S NOT UP TO ME. I DON'T RUN A PARTY. I AM NOT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. THE ONLY OFFICE I AM INTERESTED IN IS NON-PARTISAN, AS I SAY. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO THAT, I'LL LET THEM TALK ABOUT IT, NOT ME.

>> YOU DID MENTION THAT HAVING THE D BY THE SIDE OF YOUR NAME WOULD BE A BOOST IN THE POLLS HERE IN VER MONTH, WHICH IS A BLUE STATE -- VERMONT WHICH IS A BLUE STATE. GOING UP AGAINST SENATOR ILLUZI WHO HAS SPENT THREE DECADES-PLUS IN THE SENATE. YOU HAVEN'T BEEN IN ELECTED OFFICE YOURSELF. HOW DO YOU TRY AND GET YOUR NAME OUT THERE TO THE POPULOUS, BECAUSE CERTAINLY HIS IS VERY RECOGNIZABLE?

>> WELL, TWO THINGS: FIRST OF ALL, I RAN FOR STATE OFFICE LAST TIME AND GOT 105,000 VOTES. THAT'S A HECK OF A LOT MORE THAN HE'S GARNERED IN THE NORTHEAST KINGDOM. YOUR ASSUMPTION MAY NOT BE ENTIRELY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. SECOND, TO SAY THAT HE'S RECOGNIZABLE IS TRUE, BUT WE WILL FIND OUT, I THINK, HOW WELL KNOWN INSIDER MONTPELIER ACTORS ARE. CLEARLY SENATOR ILLUZI, WHO I LIKE, IS BETTER KNOWN THAN MOST. BUT THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT PEOPLE ALL OVER THE STATE FOLLOW THE WORK OF THE LEGISLATURE, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT'S TRUE. I REALLY AM NOT. I MEAN, REMEMBER A FEW YEARS BACK, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE RAN FOR GOVERNOR, AND GOT ABOUT 25 FATHERS OF THE VOTE -- 25% OF THE VOTE.

>>> IF THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE LEGISLATURE, HOW LIKELY ARE THEY TO FOLLOW THE AUDITOR?

>> THEY ARE NOT. BUT THAT'S WHEN PARTY COMES IN. FOR SURE. AND I GOT 105,000 VOTES AS A COMPLETE UNKNOWN. WHICH IS IN PART DUE TO MY CAMPAIGNING, I HOPE, BUT ALSO BECAUSE THE D WAS THERE, ALSO BECAUSE THE FOLKS AT THE TOP OF THE TICKET WERE KIND ENOUGH TO MENTION THE NEED TO VOTE DOWN THE PARTICULAR, ALTHOUGH NOT EVERYBODY -- THE TICKET ALTHOUGH NOT EVERYBODY DOES. I LOOKED AT NUMBERS LAST TIME, 10,000 PEOPLE VOTED FOR THE GOVERNOR DID NOT VOTE FOR AUDITOR AT ALL. WHICH WAS TOO BAD. THEN I CHECKED AND IT HAPPENS EVERY TIME.

>> PEOPLE DON'T GO ALL THE WAY DOWN THE BALLOT. THAT'S INTERESTING.

>> I THINK A LOT OF FOLKS SAY I VOTED FOR SENATOR LEAHY, OR SENATOR SANDERS, I VOTED FOR THE GOVERNOR, I VOTED FOR MY LOCAL REP, MAYBE ONE OF THE STATEWIDE OFFICES IF THEY HAPPEN TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF IT. THEY GET DOWN TO THE BOTTOM AND SAY AUDITOR, I DON'T KNOW. IT DOESN'T REALLY AFFECT ME. I DON'T RECOGNIZE THE NAME. I'M DONE.

>> THAT MAY BE ONE THING YOU LEARNED RUNNING TWO YEARS AGO FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE FOR THE FIRST TIME. WHAT DID YOU LEARN RUNNING AGAINST WHAT WAS THEN INCUMBENT TOM SALMON AND LOSING?

>> BETTER TO BE THE INCUMBENT, SON OF THE FORMER GOVERNOR, THAT'S FOR SURE. I LEARNED I HAD TO WORK A LOT HARDER. THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING. TOM RAN A SMART CAMPAIGN, I THINK HE KNEW THAT HIS NAME RECOGNITION WAS A POWERFUL ADVANTAGE, AND HE USED IT. AND HE EXPECTED ME TO BREAK THROUGH THAT, AND I TRIED. I DIDN'T DO AS WELL AS I HAD HOPED, BUT I THINK CONSIDERING THE HANDICAP I CAME IN WITH, I DID PRETTY WELL, GETTING 46% OF THE VOTE. BUT THIS TIME I'VE SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME IN THE LAST COUPLE MONTHS LAYING A FOUNDATION THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT. THE PEOPLE WHO DO THE WORK ON THE GROUND, THE FOLKS WHO DO THE CANVASSING AND MAKE THE PHONE CALLS AND, YOU KNOW, THE GRUNT WORK OF THE CAMPAIGN, ARE IN ALL THE VARIOUS COUNTY AND REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS. EACH TIME THEY OPENED ONE, I WAS THERE, BECAUSE WHILE THEY ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR ME, THOSE INDIVIDUALS, AND WHILE THEY ARE GOING TO DO THEIR JOBS, I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT THEY SEE ME, THEY GET TO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT ME, AND SO THEY WILL BE A LITTLE MORE MOTIVATED AND FEEL BETTER ABOUT DOING THE WORK, NOT JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE PAID OR THEY ARE STRONG DEMOCRATS OR PROGRESSIVES, BUT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DO IT FOR ME. AND I'VE BEEN WARMLY RECEIVED. AND I THINK IT IS TIME WELL SPENT. ALSO PARADES AND FARES AND THE REST OF IT, WHICH -- FAIRS.

>> YOU TOUTED THE FACT THAT YOU ARE NOT A POLITICIAN, I BELIEVE THE STATEMENT WAS SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT, IF YOU WANT A POLITICIAN, I'M NOT THE GUY. THAT BEING SAID, RECENT SEVEN DAYS ARTICLE INDICATED THAT YOU ARE DOING MORE BABY KISSING, HAND-SHAKING, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. HOW DO YOU TREAD THAT MIDDLE LINE IN ORDER TO GET THE VOTES, WHILE NOT BECOMING THAT POLITICIAN?

>> THERE'S NO WAY AROUND IT. WHAT I MEANT BY THE STATEMENT INITIALLY, AND I STICK WITH IT, NOT SO MUCH THE CAMPAIGNING, WHICH IS COMPLETELY UNAVOIDABLE, ALTHOUGH THOSE ARE DIFFERENT SKILL SETS AS WELL, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT THE BEST CAMPAIGNER, YOU MIGHT WANT TO VOTE FOR MY OPPONENT. IF YOU WANT THE GUY WITH THE BEST SKILL SET FOR THE JOB, I THINK YOU GOT TO LOOK AT ME. I MEANT PRIMARILY THAT VINCE IS EXPERIENCE -- VINCE'S EXPERIENCE IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE SKILL SET AND EXPERIENCE REQUIRED FOR THIS JOB. HE WOULD SAY OTHERWISE. AND I THINK HE DID WHEN HE WAS ON THE SHOW. BUT DEALMAKING AND -- WELL, I WILL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. THE TROOPERGATE SITUATION. VERY UNFORTUNATE WITH THE PEOPLE SO FAR WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY, BUT THE OVERTIME ISSUE IN THE STATE POLICE. HIS RESPONSE WAS TO ISSUE A PRESS RELEASE, WITH A THREE BULLET ITEMS.

>> ACTUALLY NOW YOU MENTION THAT, WE DO HAVE SOME SOUND FROM SENATOR ILLUZI, LET'S HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY, THEN YOU CAN FINISH YOUR THOUGHT ON THIS. THIS IS SENATOR ILLUZI TALKING ABOUT THAT.

>> THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT IT IS AN ISOLATED INCIDENT. WHAT THIS CASE POINTS OUT IS THAT THE SAFEGUARDS ARE NOT IN PLACE ACROSS STATE GOVERNMENT.

>> AND YOU WERE SAYING?

>> YEAH. HIS PRESS RELEASE HAD THREE BULLET ITEMS, TWO OF THEM, INTERESTINGLY, ARE ALREADY IN THE HUMAN RESOURCES POLICY MANUAL. DOES THAT MEAN THEY ARE CONSISTENTLY ENFORCED? CLEARLY NOT, AS THIS SITUATION REMINDS US. HOWEVER, MORE IMPORTANTLY, THAN TAKING THINGS OUT OF THE MANUAL AND SAYING THEY ARE NEW AND GREAT IDEAS, THAT'S NOT WHAT AN AUDITOR DOES. AUDITORS DON'T ISSUE PRESS RELEASES. WHAT THEY DO IS THEY SEND STAFF INTO THE AGENCY OF THE DEPARTMENT AND SAY PULL THE PAYROLL RECORDS, BRING THEM BACK HERE, WE REVIEW THEM, WE TALK ABOUT IT, EE WE FIGURE OUT THE NATURE AND DEPTH OF THE PROBLEM, THEN YOU DEVELOP FINDINGS ON THE BASIS OF THOSE FINDINGS, YOU ARE DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS. VINCE ISSUED THE PRESS RELEASE, I WOULD SAY, DUE TO -- DO THE WORK BEFORE YOU ISSUE THE PRESS RELEASE.

>> DO YOU THINK THERE IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE, GIVEN THIS ALLEGATION AGAINST THE TROOPER WHO IS NOW RETIRED? IS

>> IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE GUIDELINES IN PLACE HAVE TO BE BETTER ENFORCED, PERHAPS PEOPLE NEED TO BE BETTER TRAINED, AND THE OVERSIGHT HAS TO BE TIGHTENED UP. WE DON'T KNOW HOW WIDESPREAD IT IS.

>> INTERESTS -- IT IS INTERESTING, SENATOR ILLUZI WAS ON LAST WEEK, HE SAID HE HAS A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF STATE GOVERNMENT, AND THAT'S WHY HE FEELS HE WOULD BE A BETTER EQUIPPED FOR THIS JOB.

>> THAT'S HIS OPINION. I HAVE A PRETTY GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF STATE GOVERNMENT AS WELL. AND FT. WORTH MORE, IT IS -- FURTHERMORE, IT IS NOT JUST A MATTER OF KNOWING STATE GOVERNMENT. IN FACT, ONE COULD ARGUE THAT HIS LONG ASSOCIATION WITH MANY PEOPLE IN STATE GOVERNMENT, THIS TURNOVER OF COURSE, MIGHT PRESENT SOME PROBLEMS. AND THE AUDITOR HAS TO BE INDEPENDENT AND OBJECTIVE. AND THAT'S JUST ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL, AND, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T WANT A SITUATION WHERE AN AUDITOR MIGHT SAY, WELL, I KNOW FRED, HE WOULDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG. OR, NOT JUST FAVORITISM, BUT WORKING THE OTHER WAY. I NEVER LIKED THAT PROGRAM, AND NOW I SAID' GOING TO FIND OUT -- NOW I'M GOING TO FIND OUT IF I'M RIGHT. SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT. I KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING. I AM NOT ACCUSING VINCE, IT IS JUST HUMAN NATURE.

>> WHY WOULD YOU BE THE ONE FOR THAT, YOU'VE BEEN AROUND FOR QUITE A FEW YEARS, YOU'VE DONE SOME WORK FOR THE LEGISLATURE, YOU'VE BEEN AROUND STATE PROGRAMS AND STATE GOVERNMENT, WHY WOULD YOU NOT FALL VICTIM TO THE SAME TENDENCY OF HUMAN NATURE, PERHAPS?

>> THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION, BUT WHAT I HAVE IS A 24-YEAR HISTORY OF PRODUCING WORK THAT IS BASED SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE. THAT'S WHAT I DO. WHEN I SAY I AM A NUMBERS GUY, THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE WILL CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSION WITH DOUG HOFFER, THE DEMOCRAT PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATE FOR AUDITOR AFTER THESE MESSAGES. STAY WI

>>> WELCOME BACK, EVERYONE, WE ARE CONTINUING OUR DISCUSSION WITH DOUG HOFFER, DEMOCRAT PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATE FOR AUDITOR. JOINING THE QUESTIONING IS KYLE MIDURA, COVERING THIS CAMPAIGN. MR. HOFFER IS RUNNING AGAINST REPUBLICAN VINCE ILLUZI, WHO WAS OUR GUEST LAST SUNDAY ON YOU CAN QUOTE ME TO CHECK OUT THE PROGRAM, YOU CAN GO TO WCAX.COM FOR THE FULL 28-MINUTE INTERVIEW.

>> MR. HOFFER, YOU HAVE UPCOMING DEBATES. HOW ARE YOU PREPARING FOR THIS?

>> WELL, I'M SITTING DOWN WITH SOME FRIENDS, DOING A LITTLE DEBATE PREP, WHICH IS INTERESTING AND FUN. NO ROLE-PLAYING YET. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL GET THERE, EVERYBODY IS BUSY. BUT I'M THINKING, FOR ME, ABOUT THE QUESTIONS THAT VINCE MIGHT HAVE FOR ME, AND THE QUESTIONS THAT I THINK ARE MOST APPROPRIATE, IF GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK HIM. NOT ALL THE DEBATE FORMATS ARE THE SAME, AND THE TIME VARIES AND WHATNOT, BUT I'VE GIVEN IT QUITE A BIT OF THOUGHT.

>> AND WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE PLANKS IN YOUR PLATFORM THAT COULD SEND YOU TO VICTORY?

>> WELL, IT IS INTERESTING YOU REFER TO IT AS A PLATFORM. OF COURSE I AM NOT RUNNING FOR THE LEGISLATURE, BUT IT IS ABOUT, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE JOB, WHAT I BRING TO THE JOB AND WHAT I CAN DO WITH THE JOB. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME, I CAN TAKE A MINUTE AND SAY SOME OF THAT.

>> WELL, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, WHERE DO YOU SEE YOURSELF DRAWING THE BIGGEST DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN YOURSELF AND SENATOR ILLUZI?

>> IT IS SKILL SET AND EXPERIENCE. I AM A NUMBERS GUY, AND IT IS INTERESTING, BECAUSE I HEARD VINCE SAY, OR READ, PERHAPS, IN AN INTERVIEW, THAT HE SAID, WELL, YES, HE IS A NUMBERS GUY AND I RESPECT HIM AND I APPRECIATE THAT, AND I BELIEVE HIM. BUT I'M NOT SURE HE'S THE GUY THAT IS THE BIG PICTURE GUY. HE MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH THE REST OF MY CAREER, THE PART THAT HE KNOWS IS INSIDE HIS COMMITTEE ROOM, AT LEAST OUR STATE OF THE EMAIL OVER THE YEARS, BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN BIG PICTURE STUFF. IT IS INTERESTING, A GUY OR A GAL WHO HAS THIS APTITUDE, IF HE WERE ASKING QUESTIONS OF THE DATA, AND DIGGING IN, IT'S UNUSUAL AND NOT -- IT IS A LOT OF FUN, I SHOULD SAY, THAT WHAT COMES OUT OF IT MAY NOT BE WHAT YOU EXPECTED GOING IN. IF YOU DIG, FOR EXAMPLE, A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, CITY OF WELLINGTON WAS STRUGGLING WITH THEIR PENSION SYSTEM. THEY OFFERED VERY GENEROUS BENEFITS BUT THE MARKET TANKED. THEY WERE LOOKING AT A BIG GAP. I WAS DOING WORK FOR A NUMBER OF CITY COUNCILORS. I LOOKED AT WHAT THE STATE WAS DOING. OF COURSE THE STATE HAS THREE MAJOR FUNDS, ABOUT $3 BILLION UNDER MANAGEMENT. I SAW THEY WERE GETTING A BETTER RETURN, TYPICALLY, OVER TIME, AND THAT THEIR FEES WERE MUCH LOWER. WELL, THAT'S NOT SURPRISING, BECAUSE THE MORE MONEY YOU HAVE UNDER MANAGEMENT, THE LOWER THE FEES ARE. SO I SUGGESTED TO THE CITY, WHY DON'T YOU JUST TAKE THE $100 MILLION AND LET THEM MANAGE IT, YOU SAVE MONEY AND GET A BIGGER RETURN. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID. I THINK IT IS SAVING THEM SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND A YEAR. SO BEING A NUMBERS GUY DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH PROPOSALS AND REAL WORLD SOLUTIONS.

>> INTERESTING YOU TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU AND MR. ILLUZI HAVE A LONG RELATIONSHIP. I THINK THERE'S SOME KIND OF MUTUAL RESPECT, I THINK THAT'S FAIR TO SAY ON BOTH YOUR PARTS. LET'S LOOK AT ENDORSEMENTS, AND PEOPLE WHO MAKE A LOT OF THAT, WHETHER ENDORSEMENTS MATTER OR DON'T MATTER. THERE'S BEEN SOME INTERESTING STUFF, TYPICALLY WHEN IT COMES TO UNION ENDORSEMENTS, MOST GO TO ONE CANDIDATE. YOU RECEIVED THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE AFL SIGH YO, YOUR -- AFL-CIO AND YOUR OPPONENT, TYPICALLY MORE TOWARDS DEMOCRATIC PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATES. WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>> IT'S ABOUT LOYALTY. VINCE HAS BEEN IN THE INSTITUTION ALL THIS TIME, HELPED STATE EMPLOYEES ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. IT IS NOT THAT SURPRISING, TO BE HONEST.

>> ALL RIGHT. LET'S TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE BIG ISSUES OF THE WEEK THAT WE TALKED TO VINCE ILLUZI ABOUT. THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE FUTURE OF THE STATE OFFICE COMPLEX AND WHY THERE'S SOME QUESTION MARKS ABOUT HOW MUCH FUNDING THE STATE WILL GET FROM FEMA. THE SHUMLIN ADMINISTRATION IS STILL NEGOTIATING WITH FEMA FOR SOME HIGHER REIMBURSEMENT RATES, BUT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS SAID THEY ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND BUILD IN WATERBURY ANYWAY. DO YOU THINK THAT'S A PRUDENT FINANCIAL DECISION? IS

>> I ALSO READ THAT THEY HAVE A FALLBACK PLAN THAT THEY CAN GET STARTED ON THE PROJECT AND MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS ALONG THE WAY. IF THAT'S TRUE --

>> PERHAPS FEWER, A FEW INCUMBENT HUNDRED LESS EMPLOYEES -- FEW HUNDRED LESS WOULD GO INTO WATERBURY.

>> IF THEY HAVE A BACKUP PLAN THAT SAYS YOU DON'T BUILD IT THIS BIG, YOU BUILD THIS BIG. WHY NOT GET STARTED. WHY WAIT? THOSE PEOPLE ARE DISPERSED. PROBABLY NOT A GREAT WORK ENVIRONMENT. THEY NEED TO BE BROUGHT BACK TOGETHER. WATERBURY NEEDS TO BE MADE WHOLE. I THINK THERE ARE TREMENDOUS EFFICIENCIES OF BRINGING THEM BACK TOGETHER.

>> DOES THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCES CURRENTLY AT ITS DISPOSAL? WOULD YOU BE LOOKING TO ADD STAFF? HOW DO YOU SEE YOURSELF MANAGING THE OFFICE ITSELF?

>> I DON'T THINK IT'S LIKELY THAT I WOULD ASK FOR, NOR WOULD THE LEGISLATURE BE INCLINED TO GIVE MORE MONEY TO THE AUDITOR AT A TIME WHEN HUMAN SERVICE PROGRAMS ARE CHALLENGED. AS TO WHETHER THE RESOURCES ARE SUFFICIENT, I THINK THEY ARE FOR THE TIME BEING. I THINK I WOULD HOPEFULLY DO A BETTER JOB MANAGING THE RESOURCE. I'LL HAVE A PRESS RELEASE COMING OUT SOON, BUT IT DOES APPEAR THAT SOME PROJECTS ARE TAKING MORE TIME AND COSTING MORE THAN THEY MIGHT HAVE BEFORE, OR SHOULD. AND I HOPE TO WORK ON THAT AND IMPROVE ON THAT.

>> AS YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE AUDITS ARE OUTSOURCED THAT ARE DONE IN THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT PROCESS, AND DO YOU -- PRACTICE AND WOULD THAT CHANGE IF YOU WERE ELECTED?

>> THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME. NOT QUITE TO THIS EXTENT, BUT THE SINGLE AUDIT AND THE STATE'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE DONE BY KPMG WITH SOME HELP FROM THE STAFF. THERE ARE REASONS THAT IT NEIGHBORS SENSE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE -- IT MAKES SENSE, THEY HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE, PARTICULARLY WITH THE SINGLE AUDIT. FEDERAL REGULATIONS CHANGE EVERY YEAR. THEY HAVE A DEEP BENCH, A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THEIR TEAM, NOT JUST LOCALLY, BUT AROUND THE REGION WHO CAN CONTRIBUTE, AND THAT HAS VALUE. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS A LOT OF MONEY, AND I JUST DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE. THEY ARE ABOUT TO ENTER INTO A NEW CONTRACT. I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN SIGNED, BUT I THINK IT'S BEEN NEGOTIATED, AND THEY ARE MOVING TOWARDS THAT. IN FACT, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT CHOOSING ANOTHER VENDOR, BUT THE DECISION BY THE COMMITTEE WAS OVERRULED. I THINK I WANT TO LOOK AT IT, I THINK ANYBODY IN MY POSITION WOULD. BUT I WORKED WITH KPMG BACK WHEN I WORKED FOR ED FLANAGAN'S OFFICE IN THE 90s. THEY WERE ROW FEGS ALENED DID -- PROFESSIONAL AND DID A GOOD JOB.

>> YOU LOOK AT TOM SALMON'S TENURE AND SOME OF THE AUDITS HE PERFORMED AND HI HIS STAFF PERFORMED. WHAT ISSUES DO YOU THINK THEY MISSED?

>> IT IS A MATTER OF PRIORITIES, FOR REASONS KNOWN TO HIM, BEST TO HIM, TOM HAD A STRONG INTEREST IN TOWNS AND CITIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS. AND WHILE THE AUDITOR IS AUTHORIZED TO FOLLOW STATE MONEY WHEREVER IT GOES, INCLUDING EDUCATION FUND MONEY, BECAUSE TECHNICALLY IT IS STATE TAX, I AM NOT SURE THAT THAT'S WHERE I WOULD START, OR PAY THAT MUCH ATTENTION, BECAUSE SCHOOLS HAVE SEVERAL LAYERS OF ACCOUNTABILITY ALREADY. THEY HAVE A SCHOOL BOARD, THEY HAVE A TOWN SELECT BOARD OR MULTIPLE, IN THE CASE OF SUPERVISORY UNIONS. THAT'S NOT TO SAY THERE WERE NEVER PROBLEMS, BUT I WOULD RATHER DIRECT MY ATTENTION TO THE AREAS IN THE CORE OF STATE GOVERNMENT THAT ARE MASSIVE AND HAVE NOT BEEN COVERED THAT MUCH RECENTLY, FOR EXAMPLE, OTHER THAN DMV WHERE THEY DID A SMALL PERFORMANCE AUDIT, THE AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION, WHICH SPEND HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR, AND I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM, BUT THERE ARE CONTRACTS OF 40, 60, Z $80 MILLION WITH PERFECTLY REPUTABLE FIRMS, BUT I THINK EACH YEAR ONE OF THOSE LARGE CONTRACTS NEED TO BE AUDITED. IF YOU ARE AN EMPLOYEE OF A PROGRAM AND YOU EMBEZZLE MONEY, THAT'S PRETTY CLEAR YOU ARE TAKING TAXPAYER MONEY. BUT IF YOU ARE AN EMPLOYEE OF A VENDOR, WITH A $40 MILLION CONTRACT, AND YOU OVERBILL US, OR BILL US FOR SOMETHING YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE OR DOUBLE BILL US, THAT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN EMBEZZLEMENT. AGAIN, I WILL NOT -- I AM NOT SAYING THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG, BUT YOU HAVE TO CHECK PERIODICALLY. I WOULD DO ONE OF THOSE A YEAR. I THINK THE PERFORMANCE AUDITING THAT HAS BEEN DONE IS TO THEIR CREDIT, YOU KNOW, I STARTED SOME OF THAT WITH ED FLANAGAN IN THE 90s WHEN GASBY FIRST ASKED AUDITORS DO IT. I WOULD GO A LITTLE DEEPER THAN THEY HAVE. I READ MOST OF THEIR PERFORMANCE REVIEWS. THEY ARE VERY FLOW FEGS AL, BUT -- PROFESSIONAL, BUT HAVING DONE A LOT OF WORK MYSELF, I THINK YOU CAN DIG IN FURTHER.

>> ONE OF THE ISSUES YOU ALLUDED TO THAT TOM SALMON SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY IS THIS IDEA OF MAKING SURE THERE WASN'T FRAUD AT THE TOWN OR CITY LEVEL. THERE'S BEEN A RASH OF STORIES RECENTLY IN THE LAST TWO YEARS OF CITY OR TOWN EMPLOYEES WHO WERE EMBEZZLING MONEY, CONVICTED OF EMBEZZLING MONEY IN SOME CASES LARGE SUMS OF MONEY FROM VERY SMALL DEPARTMENTS. SO THAT -- IS THAT AN EXAMPLE OF AN AREA YOU WOULD FOCUS LESS ON AND CHANGE DIRECTION ON?

>> TO BE CLEAR, THE AUDITOR IS NOT EMPOWERED TO AUDIT TOWNS. THE AUDITOR CAN FOLLOW STATE MONEY. SO IF A TOWN IS HAVING TROUBLE WITH NON-SCHOOL MUNICIPAL FUNDS, THE AUDITOR HAS NO AUTHORITY IN THAT REGARD. NOW, A LOT OF WHAT -- NOT A LOT, BUT SOME OF WHAT TOM DID ON HIS OWN WITH HIS DEPUTY WAS TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS OR INITIATE REQUESTS IN SMALL TOWNS ABOUT PROBLEMS THEY WERE HAVING.

>> A CHECKLIST PROTOCOL.

>> THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE. RELATED BUT A SEPARATE ISSUE. SOME OF WHAT HE DID, AND WHAT THEY REFER TO AS SITUATION REPORTS, WHICH IS SOMETHING BASICALLY THEY MADE UP, THEY ARE NOT AN AUDIT DOCUMENT. THERE WERE NO STANDARDS FOR THEM. THEY WOULD GO IN AND TALK TO MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS AND TRY TO ASSESS THE PROBLEM AND COME BACK AND WRITE A MEMO. THAT'S NOT AN AUDIT. FURTHERMORE, THE RESOURCES ARE LIMITED, AS YOU MENTIONED BEFORE, AND THE TOWNS HAVE SOME PROBLEMS. THE SMALLER TOWNS IN PARTICULAR. WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS THAT TO DO MORE OF WHAT HE HAS TALKED ABOUT, WORK WITH THE CITIES AND TOWNS AND DEVELOP SI SYSTEMS AND BETTER TRAINING FOR THE FOLKS WHO DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES, LIKE A BIG TOWN LIKE BURLINGTON OR SOUTH BURLINGTON, THAT'S WHERE YOU CAN BE HELPFUL. YOU CAN'T AUDIT TOUBS. THAT'S NOT THE AUDITOR'S JOB.

>> I DIDN'T SAY HE HAD AUDITED THE TOWNS.

>>> HOW LONG SHOULD AN AUDIT TAKE AND HOW MUCH OF THAT LOOK INTO IT IS GOING TO BE PERFORMANCE-BASED VERSUS FINANCIAL BASED? HOW MUCH TIME GETS TAKEN UP IN LOOKING AT TWO OF THOSE FACETS?

>> IT VARIOUS TREMENDOUSLY BY THE NATURE OF THE AUDIT. MEDICAID, FOR EXAMPLE, A BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, THAT WILL BE COMPLICATED. IT IS IMPORTANT I THINK FOR THE AUDITOR ALWAYS WITH STAFF TO DEFINE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE AUDIT VERY CAREFULLY. IF NOT, WHAT YOU CAN HAVE IS WHAT'S REFERRED TO AS SCOPE CREEP. YOU KNOW, YOU START OUT SAYING THESE ARE THE FOUR THINGS WE INTEND TO DO. BUT FOR ANY NUMBER OF REASON, ONCE YOU GET INTO IT, YOU MIGHT SAY THAT LOOKS INTERESTING OR PROMISING OR MAYBE WE SHOULD FOLLOW THIS LEAD, AND BEFORE YOU KNOW IT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE GOT EIGHT THINGS TO LOOK AT. IT IS TAKING SEVEN MOST INSTEAD OF THREE -- SEVEN MONTHS INSTEAD OF THREE. BY ALL ACCOUNTS THERE'S BEEN SOME OF THAT, AND THAT NEEDS TO BE CONTROLLED.

>> WHAT DO YOU THINK WITH THE LEGISLATURE, DEMOCRATS HAD A STRONG MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE, A LOT OF POLITICAL OBSERVERS ARE NOT EXPECTING ANY MAJOR SHIFT THERE. DOES IT LOOK LIKE DEMOCRATS COULD CONTROL AGAIN THE LEGISLATURE?

>> WELL, AGAIN, THE RELATIONSHIP AS FAR AS I KNOW, FROM MY EXPERIENCE, IS THAT WHEN YOU ISSUE AUDIT MIND -- FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, THE AUDITOR HAS NO AUTHORITY, TECHNICALLY, TO COMPEL A DEPARTMENT OR AN AGENCY TO ACCEPT AND ADOPT YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS. WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, WHETHER IT JUST INVOLVES A STATUTORY CHANGE OR NOT, IS HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LEGISLATURE WHERE YOU CAN GO ACROSS THE STREET AND SAY, LOOK, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE MY RECOMMENDATIONS, ATTED ADMINISTRATION HASN'T MOVED ON THEM YET, YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT. OF COURSE THE AUDITOR EVERY YEAR IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PRECEDING YEAR, AND SOME SENSE OF HOW WE'RE DOING. YOU HAVE 27 RECOMMENDATIONS, ONLY 4 ADOPTED, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. SO IT IS INFORMATIONAL AND SOMEWHAT AS AN ADVOCATE, BUT THAT'S ABOUT ALL.

>> IT WOULD BE POLITICAL?

>> NO, PRACTICAL. VERY PRACTICAL. THE WHOLE POINT OF THESE AUDITS IS TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF STATE GOVERNMENT. AND POLICYMAKERS, OBVIOUSLY, THEY DON'T RUN THE PROGRAMS, BUT THEY SET POLICY, AND PARTICULARLY WITH PERFORMANCE AUDITS, IF YOU GO IN, IF YOU'VE DONE THE WORK AND SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS CREATED THESE THREE PROGRAMS AND THESE WERE OS TEN SIB POLICE WHY YOU ARE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, WE FOUND OUT IN SOME CASES THEY WERE DOING WELL, IN SOME CASES THEY ARE NOT. SINCE YOU ALLOCATE THE RESOURCES YOU MIGHT WANT THIS INFORMATION TO HELP YOU MAKE MORE INFORMED DECISIONS NEXT YEAR. DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE WITH THESE ONES THAT AREN'T DOING SO WELL OR CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE.

>> NOW, WE'RE STILL A FEW WEEKS OFF FROM THE ELECTION. I KNOW YOU FEEL CONFIDENT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO WIN, BUT IF YOU DON'T WIN, HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD DO?

>> I WILL GO BACK TO MY LIFE, WHICH I ENJOY. I'VE ENJOYED FOR 19 YEARS. A LOT OF FREEDOM IN BEING SELF-EMPLOYED. ON THE OTHER HAND, I'M LOOKING TO CURTAIL THE FREEDOM AND GET TO WORK WITH A GREAT GROUP OF 12 OR 13 PEOPLE.

>> WHAT DO YOU THINK THE TRANSITION WOULD BE LIKE IF YOU DO WIN, TO GO FROM AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WHERE YOU CAN CHOOSE YOUR CLIENTS, DO THE WORK WHEN YOU WANT TO DO THE WORK, TO SOMEONE WHO NEEDS TO BE IN MONTPELIER? HOW WOULD YOU ENVISION THAT JOB THAT PAYS, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN $90,000?

>> WELL, THE PAY IS NICE, THAT'S NOT THE POINT. BUT IT WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FOR ME, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. I'VE WORKED AT HOME, IN MY HOME OFFICE FOR 19 YEARS.

>> WOULD YOU GO TO MONTPELIER?

>> TO BECOME A COMMUTER, YOU KNOW. I LIKE MY CARBON FOOTPRINT NOW. IT IS GOING TO GET WORSE. BUT, NO, OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE TO SPEND SOME TIME IN THE OFFICE. DO YOU NEED TO SPEND FIVE DAYS EVERY WEEK? I DON'T THINK SO. YOU KNOW, AUDITORS HAVE DIFFERENT HABITS. TOM IS NOT IN THE OFFICE ALL THE TIME, RANDY BROCK WAS OUT OF THE OFFICE QUITE A BIT.

>> WOULD YOU WORK FROM HOME? WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING?

>> I MIGHT DO A LITTLE OF BOTH.

>> HOW DO YOU ENVISION THAT OVERALL?

>> DURING SESSION I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO BE THERE IF YOU'RE NEEDED. IT IS NOT UNSXHON FOR -- UNCOMMON, NOT SO MUCH EARLY IN THE SESSION, BUT LATER FOR THERE TO BE A REQUEST TO COME ACROSS THE STREET AND TALK TO FOLKS ABOUT ONE THING OR ANOTHER. BUT IN THE EARLY GOING, AT LEAST FOR THE FIRST FEW MONTHS OR SIX MONTHS, GETTING TO KNOW AND WORKING WITH THE STAFF IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL. SO DURING THAT PERIOD I WOULD HAVE TO BE THERE FULL TIME.

>> HOW MANY DAYS DO YOU EBB VISION WORKING FROM HOME?

>> I HAVE NO IDEA. DEMANDS ON THE RELATIONSHIP I DEVELOP WITH THEM -- DEMANDS WHO THE -- DEPENDS WHO THE DEPUTY IS. THERE ARE TASKS TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN THE OFFICE THAT ARE ADMINISTRATIVE, THEY HAVE A COUPLE GOOD PEOPLE THAT I KNOW, ONE OF WHOM HAS BEEN THERE A LONG TIME FROM WHEN I WORKED FOR ED FLANAGAN. IT IS A MATTER OF HOW MUCH OF THE BURDEN OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN THE DEPUTY AND THE OTHER STAFF CAN TAKE. FRANKLY, I WANT TO DO THE WORK WITH THE STAFF, THAT'S WHAT I'M GOOD AT. I DON'T WANT TO TRAVEL AROUND THE STATE AND GLAD HAND AND GO TO MEETINGS, I WANT TO DO THE WORK. CONTRIBUTE DIRECTLY TO THE PRODUCT.

>> DOUG HOFFER, DEMOCRAT PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR AUDITOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANKS TO YOU, KYLE, FOR JOINING THE QUESTIONING. THANKS TO YOU AT HOME FOR WATCHING AGAIN. OUR PREVIOUS GUEST WAS REPUBLICAN RUNNING FOR AUDITOR, YOU CAN SEE THE FULL INTERVIEW WITH VINCE ILLUZI. THIS INTERVIEW WILL BE POSTED SOON AS WELL. HAVE A GREAT DAY, EVERYONE.

Captioning provided by Caption Associates, LLC captionassociates.com

Powered by WorldNow
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2014 WorldNow and WCAX. All Rights Reserved. For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.