Brown and Despathy: Outsourcing responsibility ⁠55%

By Elizabeth Brown⁠71% Alison Despathy⁠71%

7/31/2026, 6:51:40 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 32.7% saturation with 245 hits. Analysis detected 1,510 faulty-reasoning hits from 750 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠55% (12,259 of 26,881 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 54.40% of the article peer group.

In recent years, the Vermont Legislature has increasingly relied on a governance model in which it establishes broad statutory requirements while delegating substantial policy design and implementation authority to appointed (non-elected) boards, commissions, and councils. 
Vermont utilizes this model in several key areas, including climate governance, regional planning, and healthcare. 
These unelected bodies (Climate Council, Regional Planning Commissions, and the Green Mountain Care Board (GMCB), respectively) are established through legislation with the intention that critical details, including methodologies, will be determined after the law is enacted. 
These legislatively created bodies can therefore assist in defining the problem, proposing regulatory responses, developing policies, and creating and enforcing rules that are subject to legal deference. 
This approach raises concerns about unconstitutional separation of powers. 
There may be valid reasons for this approach, particularly considering a part-time citizen legislature: technical expertise, flexibility in relation to rules versus statutes, continuity through election cycles. 
However, the drawbacks include the creation of non-elected entities with broad discretion, which can result in the diffusion of responsibility, conflicts of interest, a compromised democratic process, deficient oversight, and a lack of accountability for elected officials. 
An example of this problematic delegation of power and overreach is evident in regional planning commissions (RPCs). 
For decades, RPCs have primarily functioned in Vermont to provide municipalities with support, advisory guidance, and coordination with the State. 
However, RPCs have now been legislatively mandated with energy planning, housing planning, flood resilience, municipal plan approval, and state designation programs. 
In the context of municipal plans, RPCs must approve these plans, which must align with the regional plans created by the RPCs. 
This often results in a diminishing of community and local control, as municipality rights are gradually eroded. 
One RPC is utilizing the development of its regional plan to exert influence and impose stringent regulations on towns and residents. 
The Two Rivers Ottauquechee Regional Commission (TRORC) has drafted a regional plan with regulatory language that, if adopted by the RPC and approved by the Land Use Review Board, would prohibit new construction requiring Act 250 approval from utilizing fossil fuels, mandate the installation of electric vehicle chargers, and permit new buildings only on paved roads. 
The potential impacts of TRORC proposed regulations on towns, the economy, residents, and businesses are not subject to legislative evaluation. 
Vermont’s Climate Council is another instance of an unelected entity creating policy. 
As part of Act 153, the Global Warming Solutions Act established the Climate Council, comprising 23 appointed members, including several with apparent conflicts of interest. 
The Climate Council is tasked with the development of a Climate Action Plan which is then voted on by unelected members for adoption. 
This is in addition to and often in direct conflict with an existing Comprehensive Energy Plan developed and updated by the Department of Public Service since 1998 with intent to, 
“Ensure to the greatest extent practicable that Vermont can meet its energy service needs in a manner that is adequate, reliable, secure, and sustainable; that ensures affordability and encourages the State’s economic vitality, the efficient use of energy resources, and cost-effective demand-side management; and that is environmentally sound.” 
The Climate Council is not only redundant, its existence is also constitutionally questionable. 
It has broad authority to develop policy via the Climate Action Plan that, “shall set forth the specific initiatives, programs, and strategies that the State shall pursue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions;
” 
A third example is the Green Mountain Care Board (GMCB), originally designed to implement a single-payer healthcare program, Despite the failure of single-payer over a decade ago due to prohibitive costs, the GMCB continues to serve in its regulatory capacity, tasked with “improving the health of Vermonters while controlling healthcare costs and increasing access to high-quality care.” 
Since its inception, Vermont’s health insurance costs have increased exponentially while access has plummeted. 
Statutorily assigned to both regulate and develop policy via rule making, the GMCB has a clear conflict of duties with an unsuccessful trajectory. 
This has led to the escalating issues experienced by providers and patients, posing risks to critical services and hospitals themselves. 
This situation highlights examples of Vermont’s dilemma with unelected bodies and the State’s ongoing efforts to centralize and control. 
As decades of poor policy have compounded, it is imperative to evaluate the current situation and assess potential solutions. 
The same bodies created to address our problems have exacerbated Vermont’s affordability challenges. 
Creating unelected “special expert” bodies to solve these issues is undemocratic. 
It’s time to stop outsourcing responsibility. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.3%Elizabeth Brown: 7.3%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 3.8%Confirmation Bias11.3%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Elizabeth Brown: 1.9%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 1.7%Availability Heuristic7.5%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 1.9%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.9%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Elizabeth Brown: 6.5%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 3.9%Framing Effect6.1%This article: 2.3%Elizabeth Brown: 1.1%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.9%Loss Aversion2.3%This article: 6.1%Elizabeth Brown: 1.5%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.6%Status Quo Bias6.1%This article: 7.6%Elizabeth Brown: 1.9%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect7.6%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 1.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Elizabeth Brown: 2.3%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.8%Pessimism Bias4.4%This article: 24.1%Elizabeth Brown: 15.8%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 4.4%Negativity Bias24.1%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Elizabeth Brown: 1.5%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 1.0%Ad Hominem6.1%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.9%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.6%Elizabeth Brown: 1.9%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 1.9%Appeal to Authority7.6%This article: 8.5%Elizabeth Brown: 2.9%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 1.9%False Dilemma8.5%This article: 0.8%Elizabeth Brown: 1.3%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.8%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.6%Elizabeth Brown: 6.3%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 3.4%Hasty Generalization11.6%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.1%Elizabeth Brown: 1.6%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 2.0%Appeal to Emotion2.1%This article: 9.5%Elizabeth Brown: 2.8%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.7%Begging the Question9.5%This article: 12.1%Elizabeth Brown: 7.6%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.1%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.7%Elizabeth Brown: 0.7%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.5%Burden of Proof2.7%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.2%Elizabeth Brown: 2.8%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.2%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.0%Elizabeth Brown: 3.5%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 1.4%Unattributed Quote14.0%This article: 10.7%Elizabeth Brown: 2.7%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection10.7%This article: 32.7%Elizabeth Brown: 12.8%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 2.6%Biased Writer Voice32.7%This article: 2.3%Elizabeth Brown: 2.6%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 1.3%Indoctrination2.3%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 4.1%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 2.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Brown: 0.0%Vermont Daily Chronicle: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S
0.0%

750 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading

Loading

Loading

Loading


Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.