Editor’s note: This commentary is by Michael K. Smith, who was the secretary of administration and secretary of human services in Vermont under former Gov. Jim Douglas. He served in the U.S. Navy, first in Underwater Demolition Team 21 and then in SEAL Team 2. He supports deployment of the F-35 fighter jets at the Vermont Air National Guard.
[T]oo few Vermonters truly understand the dedication and sacrifice that it takes to be a member of our armed forces. Our military men and women endure long hours, often harsh, even dangerous conditions, and perhaps long deployments that take them away from family and friends. And sometimes, they are killed performing their duties.
The men and women of the Vermont National Guard deserve our appreciation, our respect and our support. The pressures they and their families are under can be unfathomable to many of us.
In any organization, but especially in our military with its hierarchical structure, it is the responsibility of senior leadership to properly respond to events in ways that protect and defend the men and women that serve under them. Good leaders face challenges directly and openly. Yet, when Maj. Gen. Steven Cray, Vermont’s adjutant general, was recently confronted by VTDigger with confirmed accounts of misconduct and questionable behavior — which caused them to ask if the Guard had a culture that allowed sexual harassment, cronyism, and the mismanagement of Guard enrollment numbers — he declined to defend his organization. Instead, Cray revoked the media outlet’s access to the Vermont National Guard raising suspicion that in fact the Guard was trying to hide something.
There were multiple ways that Cray could have personally confronted the accusations including defending Guard decisions and educating the public why those decisions were necessary. But, instead, he took the approach that he did not owe the media, and by extension, the public, insight into the allegations that were coming to light. This was a mistake.
In contrast, former Vermont Adjutant General Martha Rainville, now retired and living in North Carolina, did make herself available to speak with a reporter and answer VTDigger’s questions and the Guard is better off for it.
As if Cray’s media strategy weren’t bad enough, he compounded his mistake by holding a poorly planned press conference to “set the record straight.” Gov. Phil Scott and senior members of his administration joined him. The press conference raised more questions than answers. Cray “vehemently” disagreed with VTDigger’s characterization of the events they had reported on, but with the exception of one number that was slightly off, he could not point to a single instance where their stories were inaccurate or misleading. And, he undermined his own credibility when he told a reporter from another media outlet that he had revoked VTDigger’s press access out of anger at their outreach to a former Guard member and victim. Cray, and his media team, had revoked VTDigger’s press access before the call to the victim had taken place. So his statement was not true.
However, what matters most in all of this is the failure of Guard leadership team to acknowledge or even recommend a single policy, procedure or mechanism to respond to any of the accusations of cronyism, sexual harassment and the fudging of enrollment numbers made by dozens of sources in the VTDigger articles. Supporters of Guard leadership will say that these incidents have been thoroughly investigated by the proper governmental agencies and were found to be fully addressed. And that may be the case. But such a response fails to recognize that more needs to be done to address growing concerns about Guard conduct.
Without actions that clearly demonstrate that Guard leadership “gets it” and is addressing concerns raised in the series of VTDigger articles, things are bound to get worse. There will likely be more sources, more allegations, and more stories, perhaps even legislative hearings, and a continued inability to recruit as a result of reputational damage. Does this scenario serve the Guard’s best interests? Clearly, it does not. Guard leadership should be asking themselves this important question: Is there a better way to respond to these accusations? And the answer should be yes.
Maj. Gen. Cray has announced his retirement, so with new leadership of the Guard comes new opportunities, but this opportunity only exists if both the Legislature and the governor work together and take advantage of it.
Currently, the Vermont Legislature elects the adjutant general through a secret ballot process. In essence, a political campaign is waged with various candidates jockeying for the state’s highest military position.
Instead of electing the adjutant general, the Legislature should change the process so that it mirrors the judicial nominating process where both the Legislature and the governor play key roles. It works like this: a nominating board comprised of qualified individuals including lawmakers would vet and recommend candidates to the governor. The governor would then make the appointment, and the entire legislative body could confirm that selection, as they do today for cabinet appointments. This process would depoliticize the appointment of adjutant general and give leaders greater confidence in the process through proper vetting.
Secondly, the governor and the Legislature should appoint a blue-ribbon commission comprised of experts in various fields to examine ways Vermont can better support the men and women of its Guard. The work of this commission should respond to the allegations in recent reports, but also include other support mechanisms for the Guard.
Our Guard members deserve the best leaders, the best equipment, and the most support we can give them. Currently, it’s a safe bet that the men and women of the Vermont National Guard feel under siege because of all the negative press. But if the governor and Legislature take advantage of the opportunity that is before them, then they can provide the necessary support to enhance our guard. The question is: will they?
