 Hello and welcome to CCTV's Channel 17 and Town Meeting Television. I'm Matt Kelly with another Candidate Forum for our 2018 General Election. We are joined this evening by Jim Condos and H. Brook Page, candidates for Secretary of State. We do have news that Mary Alice Herbert was not available to join us this evening. She is still running. You will see her name on the ballot. Time for opening statements from each of our candidates. Brook Page, we'll begin with you. Very good. Thank you for having me, Matt. My name is Brook Page and I've been a Vermonter here for over 30 years, commuted back and forth to Philadelphia for most of that time to earn a living. I'm a member of the Justice of the Peace and a member of the Board of Civil Authority in my little town of Washington, Vermont, where I take great pride in doing that. Over the past few election cycles, I've become concerned about the process we have in the elections and several aspects. One, the open primary system is basically some sort of prancing pony show that really doesn't get a lot done and at the same time costs the Secretary of State's office a fair amount of money. I think there's better ways to do that and so that's one thing that we'll talk about in a few minutes. There's other aspects. I mean, the Secretary of State's office does a lot of desperate things. They're in charge of archives and in charge of corporations and also used to have an educational function that they no longer seem to do a lot as far as civics, not so much as far as educating town clerks and things of that nature. And so there's a lot of areas for improvement. Jim's not doing a bad job by any stretch of the imagination, but I think there's other things and we'll get into some of those that can be improved. Very good. Jim Conos, your opening statement, please. Thank you very much, Matt. And first and foremost, I love my job. I love going to work in the morning. And I see the opportunity of serving Vermonters and providing customer service. I have a background working for over 30 years in business and I have worked for a Fortune 100 company, a Vermont regulated utility and a Vermont family owned 30 million dollar distribution company. In my public sector, I was a city counselor for the city of South Burlington for 18 years, eight of those years I was the chair. I served in the state senate and chaired two different committees, education and government operations. Government operations is the committee that actually has the authority over the Secretary of State's office. And I've been eight years now as Secretary of State. I also this year was elected by my peers, Republican and Democrat, to be the president of the National Association of Secretaries of State. We've completed six IT projects all successfully and on budget. We have really reformed our office from a paper driven system that was inefficient, that was inaccurate to one that is very accurate, very efficient. And we continue to look at all the business practices to make sure that we're doing things the right way. With regards to corporations, the registration system, we actually went from 0% online to now 98% online. With the office of professional regulation, we've gone from 0% online to now 98% online. And elections will get into more as we go. Just a reminder that if you, our viewer has a comment or a question for our candidates, our phone lines are open at 862-3966. And we welcome all our viewers enjoying our online stream at ch17.tv. And our reminder to our candidates, we have a limited time, so if we can keep to a minute, two minutes to our responses, that would be great. We're going to begin with you, Jim, here, public records. They just seem to be really in the space today. There are numerous lawsuits about access to these public records. These organizations are having to spend limited funds to pursue these documents. What is the balance? And isn't it ultimately Vermonter's right to know and need to know? Absolutely. And frankly, I've been right on top of that. We've worked since the first day I walked in the office with the legislature to increase the management of our public records, but also to improve how they're dealt with. Let's be clear, public records are all records that are created by government, whether they're acquired or created. And so they're all public. There are certain exemptions that are allowed by law that protect some of the identity information that's in those public records. So what we do is I've been really clear with the legislature that that is something we need to address completely. I have actually been pushing for an ombuds person to actually act as a, if you want to call it an intermediary between the final denial by an agency before you go to court. Because really, that's all you have. The media, and I talk with the media all the time, the only response they have is to go to court. And that's a real problem, and I have been adamantly in favor of increasing the public records access. In fact, to the point where we change the law that allows, that makes it mandatory for attorney's fees, whether it's a citizen or a media outlet, whether they win, if they win substantially, they will get their attorney's fees back. So I've been really upfront about that. Brooke, your response on that? As far as... What's the fine line between the right to know of the public, transparency, when it refers to these documents, and news organizations and their limited funds to have to sue for the right to review some of these records? I think that all of government records should be open and transparent. I think that only when there's confidentiality of employees or something of that nature should there be any restrictions at all. I know under Bill Sorrell, a TJ Donovan's predecessor, there was a whole lot of not wanting to show things up, and I think they wound up going to court and finding that at least Mr. Sorrell's position as far as emails and other electronic communications couldn't be held back, and so I think that was a good thing. I had taken this when we were sent the questions. I took it as being a little bit more of local records rather than in the state. And I know that in our little town, our town clerk, Carol Davis, is extremely efficient in making sure all of the records are available anytime. So that aspect of it is another thing that as far as access to local and town records, but I think it's important, more transparency. One problem that I've had, I can't promote, is that the documents that are kept in archives which are also under the Secretary of State's control is somewhat less or more disoriented. I've had a great deal of problem retrieving old election records and things like that from archives, and many of them are mis-filed, and when that's done it's a huge problem to try to locate and isolate the documents. We'll move right on here, and we'll move to you. Brooke, you had intimated in your opening statement you had some concerns about the open primary and the dollars and cents that that costs. Can you speak to that and some of your other concerns that you see or why you might be running for your office? One of the primary things that have been involved in my efforts in the past three election cycles in 2014 and 2016, I ran as a Democrat for governor and attorney general. Trying to make the point that our open primary system is just totally out of control. Anybody, I need to preface that lifetime Republican, and in our current system anybody can run for anything or more than anyone's office, a lifelong Republican can run as a Democrat, Democrats can run as Republicans, Democrats can cross over since they get wind up with all three ballots in the primary and write all the Democratic published candidates in on the Republican ballot, which has been done a number of times, and my efforts this go round made it the first time since I think 2002 that a Democrat wasn't able to secure by writings the Republican nomination for office. So this whole thing that the cost that I've been told by folks in the elections office is that the primary costs just the state about 250 to $300,000 in an off year and another 100,000 or so to run the presidential primary, which has all of the same problems to it. I'd really like to see us either go to a closed primary system, which wouldn't really save us that much money, or more importantly that we'd go to a caucus system, not like Iowa has where they're all running around in a gymnasium to folding tables or something, but where the parties would each come up with the set of rules and how they're going to select their candidates, and then they would have a statewide convention where, as I envision it, the county committees where the candidates have gone to do their sales pitch would all send delegates to the state convention, and so this would the caucus system would save us all this money because the point at which the the slates of candidates for each party would be given to the secretary of state would be through the nomination by committee process. So just so I'm understanding it's a little bit, you are not in favor of the open primary process, the primary process in fact where you were on a ballot for several different offices. Total is seven, that's the outset. In the general election we have a candidate, a third party candidate on the ballot for several offices as well, and you are not in favor of that system. Is that where you are advocating? I'm exclusively speaking to the primary system. I'm not saying that it's inappropriate for a candidate to be in more, running for more than one office in the general election. How they would do that though would, as they do now, they would have people sign a petition as they're running as an independent for each of those offices they sought to seek. So there would be no exclusion of any candidates. We'd still have quite a few candidates on the general election ballot, but this would concentrate the efforts of the Democratic Party, Republican Party, Liberty Union Party progressives to come up with their champions for the general election, and all of the time, money, and efforts that are wasted in the primary here in Vermont currently for the most part to no avail. I mean, many of the offices or many of the parties don't really want to have competitions in the primary, so it basically becomes like Russia where there's one name for each office. Okay. So Jim, we asked him about the open primary process. He himself, Brooke, his candidacy in a sense was a statement about the open primary process during our primary season. Your thoughts on that and some of the issues that he's raised? Well, first, I need to correct a couple things that he said. One is that in the presidential primary, you don't actually get to, you get to pick which ballot you want to fill out at the time that you are checking in. You don't get two ballots and then decide which one you're going to fill in. The other is that the primary process that we have now does not require party registration. If you went to a closed primary, we would have to have primary party registration. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Well, I would say by the number of calls we get just because of the presidential primary, it's a bad thing. Most people do not want to be pigeonholed into a party as a Republican or a Democrat or a progressive. And I think that that is something that, you know, where it's a public information, you are a registered Republican, you are a registered Democrat. You don't have that in Vermont right now. And it hasn't been that way since around 1980. So I would say that that the general public would not support that. Having said that, I don't have a problem with talking about with the legislature. It's not my office that makes that decision. It's the legislature that would make those decisions. But I would not have a problem with talking to them about caucuses. I have in the past talked to them about whether we offer an opportunity for a party to declare that they want to do a caucus rather than a primary election. So it's you know, there are costs to it and there's cost to everything. But I think that we have a system right now that allows for open and I do want to you know, my opponent here has said that you know, the Democrats have manipulated the Republican vote. I can tell you that I've won the Republican nomination in the previous three elections. I did it without even asking one person to cross over and vote for me. This time in the in the election that the Brooke won on the Republican side, I received over 90% of the Republican right in votes to go to be to be their nominee. So I think it's it's it's really the people are speaking and and I think this is one thing that I am very concerned about is to make sure that the people of Vermont have the opportunity to voice their concerns. And that's how they do it. Your voice is your your vote is your voice. That's what would let you know how people think. Very good. You you're I think you've got some I do. First of all, I have I'm not advocating necessarily for closed versus open primaries. I'm advocating for caucus system because Jim's correct. If you had a closed primary, you'd have to declare your party. But that's exactly what we have in the presidential primary. When you go in and ask for which ballot, which ballot you've asked for is recorded. And that's a public record that is available to the parties. Matter of fact, I think the parties have insisted on that because they use it as a method for for culling their their information during their data mining. Jim said, Oh, look, 90% of the Republicans right ends were for him. 90% of those people were not Republicans because you can take a look and the exact same people down or at least based upon the statistics, the exact same number of people crossed over and voted for Beth Pierce and Doug Hoffer and TJ Donovan on the Republican ballot. It's it's a cadre of Democrats who regularly do this. And I guess the fact that none of the offices were open this time didn't persuade them from doing so. You know, I mean, you know, it the whole open primary thing is just just a real circus that needs to be put an end to. We do have a caller and we'll go right to that right now. Caller, we thank you for dialing in and asking a question, both of Jim condos and Brook Page. Your question, please. Yes, I just heard somebody mention the three party system Democrat, Republican, and progressive. I didn't realize that we still had that now, because all the progressives are running as Democrats and all the Democrats seem to be progressive. So basically, we still have a two party system with the progressives hiding themselves underneath the Democratic mantle. Is that a true statement? Thank you for the question, caller. Brook, we'll begin with you. Democrat progressive. Is it one party or is it two parties? I'll just make the brief comment that it appears that a lot of the folks that used to be progressive have suddenly become Democrats. And I think that was because the progressives didn't seem to be at least on statewide basis, didn't seem to be able to get a lot of traction. And so they have now recast themselves as Democrats. And I think the caller to that extent is true. And we have a multi party system. It's not only what remains of the progressive party, Democrats and Republicans, we also have the Liberty Unionist as well. Peter Diamondstone's flagship that soldiers on. Great. Jim condos. Democrat progressive. Is it a one party? I would say no, it's not. I mean, I think there are differences between all three parties. And I think the fact that you have somebody running as a Democrat, and then they switch over and become a progressive in the in the in the general election, that's that's a tactic that they use to show that they're a progressive Democrat versus a Democrat progressive. And you know what, that's the system we have. And if the if the legislature wants to debate that system, we can change that. But but it's it's it's the current system that we have. And you know, it's it's the people that are voting, the people know, when someone is running for as a Democrat, or as a progressive, they understand that. And they know who they're voting for. I mean, for instance, David Zuckerman has run as a Democratic nominee in the in the primary. And then he becomes a progressive first as a statewide candidate. He's up front about that he tells people that he's running as a Democrat and then in the primary, but will become a primary progressive in the in the in the general election. He still has a Democrat after his name. But he's a progressive. If we may, we're good. We only have a little bit of time. We're going to move on here. I apologize. And so we'll move here, Jim, with this question here. And it sort of is following up on what we were talking a little bit with Brook here and what he raised about in terms of the open primary. Senator's president, Senate President Tim Ash has floated the possibility of raising a constitutional amendment to make the governor a four year term. Do you support a four year term for the governor? And also, do you think that the governor and the lieutenant governor should both be of the same party elected as a slate candidacy? That might take a constitutional amendment to change that. But I believe that I don't think there's anything wrong with the system we have. I do believe that all statewides should be a four year term. I don't think it's a good idea to have two year terms. When I was in the state Senate, I sponsored actually at least two constitutional amendments to change that. I don't think it's a good idea to do just the governor and not every any of the other statewides. And I also think that whether it's the Senate or the House in the Senate, that they also should have four four year seats as well, maybe split them up so that they're off years. But I think, you know, if you have a governor with a four year term, and everybody else is two year term, that means the governor is free in that second term, the second two years of his term to go out and campaign for anybody he wants without repercussion. And I don't think that's a good idea from a balance of power. So I do think it's a good idea, though, for a four year term for at least the statewides and preferably at least the Senate. I know that many of the House members have said that they would rather stay as a two year term because they're considered closer to the people. They have a smaller district than it's closer to the people. But I think that there's there's good reason for doing four year terms, one of them being planning processes. We're going to come to you in in that in just a minute, I wanted to do a follow up question with Jim on this. It's a secure process, isn't it? If that were to even well, it could be would have to be a biennium and then the next biennium. So potentially even it might it could also be just five, it depends. But but essentially, in order for this long process for it to occur. Yes. And essentially, what has to happen is it has to start the constitutional amendment start in the Senate. It has to be approved by two thirds majority. Then it goes to the Senate of the House has to be approved by a simple majority. It does not go to the governor. You have a new legislature elected new biennium. At that point, it's it's a simple by majority by both bodies. And if it passes both of that at that point, then it goes to a referendum vote of the people. And that's the process. So Brook Page, a four year governor term and a slate candidacy for the governor and lieutenant governor, your thoughts? Well, first of all, I'm not in favor of four year term. I think I think that the two year term that we've had since the foundation of the kind of the state is not necessarily a bad thing. If the voters have a good fellow that's in there, they're going to readily return him to office. If we get a bit of a rascal in there, it's only two years that we have the opportunity to maybe show them the door. The other part of this that's never discussed and about this four year term thing is nobody ever talks about term limits. If sudden, I mean, my thing is the best term limits we have is a two year cycle. You know, if we have somebody good in there, they can be in there for three or four or five terms. If they're doing a good job and everybody's pleased with them. But if you have a four year term without term limits, then they have a lot of damage that they can do before we can show them the door. Like I said, I'm really in favor of keeping it as a two year term. I know for incumbents that tends to be a little bit more of a problem, but it keeps them on their toes. I'm out of slate candidacy for the lieutenant governor. I've heard that advance several times. I'm not sure that I'm displeased with the system we have now. You know, the having both of the people on the same ticket, which would be the same as when we have presidential and vice presidential candidates running together, really becomes incumbent on the governor at that point, and then whoever he chooses to come along with him rather than each of the candidates having to stand on their own ground. And, you know, it makes for an interesting mix. Certainly when we returned Dick Snoddling to office and Howard Dean was lieutenant governor, we had an unexpected turn of events and some some think that was good. And a lot of people think other people think it wasn't so good. But you know, I think that each candidate needs to be selected on their own merits. And so having a having a two candidate ticket for governor and lieutenant governor needs a lot more thought before before we would decide to do that. Very good. Brooke, we'll go to you for the final question here before we get to our final candidate statements. And that really is about voter fraud. You know, there's such national concern here about the Russians hacked our elections. How confident are you that the Secretary of State is doing everything that they can to protect Vermonters in their privacy data, as well as our voter systems being protected against fraud? Oh, two totally different questions. Both internally, I'm not sure that the that our personal data is necessarily well protected by the Secretary of State, because I don't know if that's really within within the wheelhouse of the Secretary of State's office that, you know, so much of data and processing and all of this thing that is subject to hacking is really outside of the control, not only the Secretary of State, but the state itself is is is the Attorney General candidates were talking about earlier. As far as elections, our system is still sufficiently manual, you know, with checks and balances between the paper ballots and the optical readers and then that data being transmitted. But I think there's not a great opportunity for fraud on that scale. I think that a lot of people perceive that there's voter fraud in the state. When you're out just out and about talking with people, they're, it strikes me that 10 or 15% of people really think that something nefarious is going on. I know Randy Brock a number of years ago when he was an auditor of accounts did a fairly extensive survey, taking a look at voter registration and why he found a significant number of dead folks and folks that had moved away were still on the voter registration roles. He found very little evidence that the dead people were rising from their slumber to go vote. But at the same time, I think the other aspect of this and Jim talks all about voter suppression. I think there's a big thing that with 10 or 15% of the people thinking that a significant number and I this is all subject to somebody actually going out and analyzing this and getting data on it. But I would I think that 15% of people think that eight or 10 or 12% of the vote vote is somehow compromised. And many of these people who I've talked to have said I've given up on voting. I've stopped voting. I've stopped being involved in the process because it's all corrupt and I'm sitting there saying I don't think it's that bad. I think the perception is far worse than the reality. But at the same time, these are people that have basically been subject to voter suppression that because there hasn't been a strong statement put out there that, you know, the ballot is secure that the process is secure that a lot of people have become disenfranchised. Jim, it's a big question there. So are we secure? Are we safe? We have 100% confidence in our system. Let me first say we are not on the state system. We are on our own separate server. And so we are protected. This has been at the forefront of the Secretary's estate across this country, red states and blue states for the last two years. Here in Vermont, we actually started back in 2013, with cybersecurity, risk and vulnerability assessments to understand better what we are. The study that my opponent had referenced about Randy Brock, that had had to do with an old database that we used to use. That system was gone as of 2015. It is no longer in service. We have now a more sophisticated system. As far as dead people being on the voter registration database, there will always be on every database across this country, dead people on the, it just doesn't change that quickly. So there will always be people. There will always be people on it who have moved to another state. The problem is if they vote in more than one place, that is the issue. And we have a system in place now where when someone is registered in Vermont, our system automatically audits the database and lets the person know, the town clerk know, because it all starts at the town clerk and works its way up to us. We don't maintain, we just maintain the big database, but it all is the actual maintenance is done by the each town clerk. So there is an audit system in place that allows the town clerk to see when John Smith from Washington registers to vote, oh, they're already registered in Burlington, then it will send a notice to Burlington to let them know to remove that person from their system. So we actually have a system in place. And I will say this clearly, voter fraud, the true voter fraud in this country is denying any eligible American the right to cast a ballot. That's the true voter fraud. And by the way, just this week, we announced publicly that Vermont set a record for the number of voter registrations we crossed the hundred four hundred and eighty thousand in 2016. On election day was around four hundred sixty five ninety two point five percent. Exactly. Wonderful. My thanks to both our candidates here. Unfortunately, we are out of time, so we cannot do closing statements, but we thank them both for joining us here this evening and a reminder that early voting has already begun here in the state of Vermont and continues up until election day. You can register to vote and cast your ballot on the same day all the way up until Tuesday, November six for a complete calendar of upcoming forums, candidate forums. Please visit our website, ch17.tv and we hope you will join us all here Tuesday, November six for complete election results beginning at seven p.m. For all of us at town meeting television, I'm Matt Kelly. Thank you for watching. Jim, thank you.