Crossposted from BorderJumpers.org. Originally featured on Thought Leader, written by Danielle Nierenberg, senior researcher at the Worldwatch Institute and Jim De Vries, director of Heifer International’s Programs Division.

From public-service announcements on television to billboards – it’s the motto for a place that just 15 years ago was torn apart by genocide. More than one million people were murdered in 1994 as ethnic strife turned neighbour against neighbour in one of the bloodiest civil wars in African history.

“Heifer is helping a recovery process,” explained Dr Dennis Karamuzi, a veterinarian and the programmes manager for Heifer International Rwanda. Heifer started its projects in Rwanda in 2000 in a community in Gicumbi District, about an hour outside of Kigali, the capital. This community was especially hard hit by the genocide because it’s close to the border with Uganda. Residents, who weren’t killed, fled to Kigali for safety.

In the years following the genocide, Gicumbi District is making a comeback thanks, in part, to Heifer International. Heifer works with farmers all over the world, helping them develop sustainable agriculture practices, including providing livestock and training farmers how to raise them.

Heifer’s start in Rwanda was a little rocky. At first the community was suspicious of the group – because they were giving farmers “very expensive cows” says Holindintwali Cyprien, one of the farmers trained by Heifer to raise dairy cows; they didn’t understand how the group could just give them away. Many community members thought that it was a plot by the government to have them raise livestock and then take them away, a remnant of the ethnic rivalry between the Hutus and Tutsis that started the conflict there in the 1990s.

But Heifer introduced a South African dairy breed, known for its high milk production, because, according to Dr Karamuzi, “no stock of good [dairy cow] genes” was left in the country after the genocide. And he says that these animals help prove “that even poor farmers can take care of high-producing cows”.

And these animals don’t only provide milk – which can be an important source of protein for the hungry – and income to families. They also provide manure, which is a source of fertiliser for crops and is now helping provide bio-gas for cooking to households raising cows in the country as part of a national bio-gas programme.

Madame Helen Bahikwe, another farmer in Gicumbi District, began working with Heifer International in 2002. She now has five cows – and an excess of manure. With a subsidy from the government, Helen built a bio-gas collection tank, which allows her to use the methane from decomposing manure to cook for her 10-person family. She no longer has to collect or buy firewood, saving both time and money and protecting the environment. The fuel is also cleaner burning, eliminating the smoke that comes from other sources of fuel.

Heifer is also helping farmers become teachers, training other Heifer partners. Holindintwali Cyprien hasn’t always been a farmer. After the genocide, he and his wife, Donatilla, were school teachers, making about $USD50 monthly. Living in a small house constructed of mud, without electricity or running water they were saving to buy a cow to help increase their income. But when Heifer International started working in Rwanda almost a decade ago, Cyprien and Donatilla were chosen as one of the first 93 farmers in the country to be Heifer partner families. Along with the gift of a cow, the family also received training and support from Heifer project coordinators.

Today, they’ve used their gift to not only increase their monthly income – they now make anywhere from $USD 300-600 a month – but also improved the family’s living conditions and nutrition. In addition to growing elephant grass and other fodder – one of Heifer’s requirements for receiving animals – for the 5 cows they currently own, Cyprien and Donatilla are also growing vegetables and keeping chickens. They’ve built a brick house and have electricity and are earning income by renting their other house.

Today, Cyprien is going back to his roots and making plans to teach again – this time to other farmers. He wants “the wider community to benefit from his experience”.

And Heifer’s work is now being recognised – and supported – by the Rwandan government. In 2008 the government instituted the One Cow Per Poor Household Programme, which aims to give the 257 000 of the poorest households in the country training and support to raise milk for home consumption.

But Heifer, says, Dr Karamuzi, is also building an exit strategy by connecting farmers to cooperatives, which can organise and train farmers themselves.

Thank you for reading! If you enjoy our diary every day we invite you to get involved:

1. Comment on our daily posts — we check for comments everyday and want to have a regular ongoing discussion with you.

2. Receive regular updates–Join the weekly BorderJumpers newsletter by clicking  here.

3. Help keep our research going–If you know of any great projects or contacts in West Africa please connect us connect us by emailing, commenting or sending us a message on facebook.

I am the very model of the modern gen’ral manager,

(I  couldn’t find a rhyme to use except for scarlet tanager.)

I know the ways to get the most from ev’ry workers’ salary;

My stingy style has landed me in Michael Moore’s rougues’ gallery!

I’m very well acquainted too with matters mathematical

Eliminating workers when the cost is problematical

In selling you my product I can turn on personality

Nevermind  the loopholes and those tiny technicalities.

Nevermind the loopholes and those tiny technicalities,

Nevermind the loophole and those tiny technicalities,

Nevermind the loopholes and those tiny technicali-ali-ties.

My loyalty belongs to those who think of themselves globally

I outsource  jobs and import gobs while compensated nobley.

In terms of being generous I think I do commendably

I may say “no” but offer prayers and end them all “amen-dably.”

When my bonus isn’t big enough to buy a yacht magestical,

It undermines my manhood like an undescended testicle.

I make it up by cheating on my unsuspecting lady-wife.

Expense account philandering has really perked-up my love life.

Expense account philandering has really perked-up my love life,

Expense account philandering has really perked-up my love life,

Expense account philandering has really perked-up my oh my love life.

We minimize new hirement, and emphasize retirement

When stockholders are restless we are not averse to firement

Shortsightedly we toddle on ignoring all contrarians

We can not see how open land can still remain agrarian.

I’m good at keeping government providing lots of subsidies

To maintain me in business while the help toil on their bended knees

There’s order in my universe, though some may call my ways perverse

In short I am the model of the modern gen’ral manager.

There’s order in my universe, though some may call my ways perverse

In short I am the model of the modern gen’ral manager.

The Barre/Montpelier is carrying a story this morning headlined Yankee officials set for closed-door talks that discusses next month’s now not so secret meeting regarding the newly open and transparent (yeah … right) Louisiana Entergy and their broken and breaking more Vernon, Vermont nuclear plant.

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said Monday that the April 14 meeting was being held at the Keene Country Club in part to avoid the Vermont Right-to-Know Law, which requires that any meeting involving the majority of any elected board be open to the public and be legally warned.

Sheehan said the closed-door session was designed for elected officials and state regulators to ask their questions and get a briefing from NRC officials without the pressure of the press being present or the public listening.

Okay, so at least the NRC is open about the fact they don’t want us unwashed masses getting in on the facts. But so far I haven’t heard any Vermont officials saying they not only won’t but legally can’t attend such a meeting.

The law says …

§ 312. Right to attend meetings of public agencies

(a) All meetings of a public body are declared to be open to the public at all times, except as provided in section 313 of this title. No resolution, rule, regulation, appointment, or formal action shall be considered binding except as taken or made at such open meeting, except as provided under section 313(a)(2) of this title. A meeting may be conducted by audio conference or other electronic means, as long as the provisions of this subchapter are met. A public body shall record by audio tape, all hearings held to provide a forum for public comment on a proposed rule, pursuant to section 840 of Title 3. The public shall have access to copies of such tapes as described in section 316 of this title.

(1 V.S.A. § 312. Right to attend meetings of public agencies per Vermont legislative site)

You will notice there is no provision for holding a meeting somewhere other than in Vermont. In other words this law is binding on all members of a Vermont public body regardless the location of the meeting.

If any such member of a Vermont public body attends this meeting they are knowingly and willfully violating the law.

It was about a month and a half ago that I posted this piece, specifically noting that:

…if you read this piece, it looks as though the plan being discussed will exclude non-union shops from participating.

Here’s the thing, though: it doesn’t.  It merely requires them to hold their employment standards to a certain level.  This makes for a better bid process, because it prevents the contractors with good and solid labor practices from losing out to other companies which will just go for really low bids and pay their employees lower wages and benefits.

But, of course, hackery abounds.  In this specific case, the hackery takes more than one form.

In the Times Argus we hear that:

Vermont lawmakers have weighed in as well. A letter signed by the chairmen of the House and Senate transportation committees asks New York officials to dispense with any PLA that has “the effect of putting Vermont contractors at a competitive disadvantage” or would force them to “go outside their usual labor pool.”

“We’re paying for half the bridge,” Patrick Brennan, chairman of the House Transportation Committee said Friday. “We may as well get some work out of it.”

This, of course, is hyperbole.  No one is a competitive disadvantage here unless they are unwilling to abide by certain minimum standards.  If Hirschfeld had bothered to contact anyone other than right wing anti union hacks in “researching” this piece, he would have known this.

And speaking of research, our research here at GMD notes that the vice-chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, Phil Scott, is “co-owner of DuBois Construction Inc.”  

Right.  No possible conflict of interest there when it comes to a bridge contract.

I just gotta say, if the media were doing its job on this sort of thing, it would save me a lot of time.  Okay, a little time.  But still, just because I can spend 15 minutes using Google doesn’t mean that people who are paid to do research for a living shouldn’t do a bit better.

Heh. Yeah, that’s right – publisher, baby. Some of you have noticed (and thanks for the emails) that I haven’t been around much of late. There are a few different reasons for this, but the long and the short is that I’m slipping into a slightly different role. At least for now, I’m embracing the “man behind the curtain” persona, and as such am embracing a more traditional (yipe!) “publisher” position on GMD. I’ll be doing things behind the scenes – including some improvements and promotion of the site. Mostly, though, I’ll be playing J. Jonah Jameson and harassing the front pagers heartlessly whilst chomping on a big, nasty cigar.

None of which is to say that I won’t be writing, but my writing in the last few months has often been the product of much collaboration, so putting it under my own byline seems rather glory-hogging. Features like the mojometers often are developed with group input – and this is precisely why we have the user GMD – to more accurately byline collective efforts of different front pagers.

So I’ll still have a lot of impact on content – as well as doing some writing – but I’ll likely just be more behind the scenes and collaborative (or is that behind the scenes and dictatorial?). At least for now. Let the other folks get the spotlight I’ve hogged for too long. I get the cool, fancy title.

Cross-posted from the Worldwatch Institute’s Nourishing the Planet.

The highways in southern Africa are filled with trucks carrying food aid across the continent. In the past, much of the maize, rice, soy, and other foods loaded onto these trucks came not from African farmers, but from the United States. And while these shipments provided much needed calories to people in need, they also disrupted national and local markets by lowering prices for locally grown food.

But today, more and more of the crops providing food aid come from African farmers who are selling directly to the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) through local procurement policies. In Liberia, Sierra Leone, Zambia, and several other nations in sub-Saharan Africa (as well as in Asia and Latin America), WFP is not only buying locally, but helping small farmers gain the skills necessary to be part of the global market.

The WFP’s Progress for Profit (P4P) program, with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, and the Belgian government, is working with the private sector, governments, and NGOs to provide an incentive for farmers to improve their crop management skills and produce high-quality food, create a market for surplus crops from small and low-income farmers, and promote locally processing and packaging of products.

In Zambia, WFP buys food directly from the Zambia Agricultural Commodity Exchange while remaining “invisible,” says Felix Edwards of the Zambia P4P Program. This way, WFP Zambia doesn’t distort prices and helps create an alternative market for farmers. WFP also works through its partners, including USAID’s PROFIT program, to help farmers and farmer associations meet the quality standards required by the Exchange. As a result, they are preparing Zambian farmers to provide high-quality food aid not only to programs and consumers in their own country, but also potentially to growing regional and international markets.

Thank you for reading! If you enjoy our diary every day we invite you to get involved:

1.Comment on our daily posts — we check for comments everyday and want to have a regular ongoing discussion with you.

2.Receive regular updates–Join the weekly BorderJumpers newsletter by clicking here.

3.Help keep our research going–If you kno of any great projects or contacts in West Africa please connect us connect us by emailing, commenting or sending us a message on facebook.

(Update question: exactly what does “of Islamic decent” [sic] mean?)

At least seven people, including some from Michigan, have been arrested in raids by a FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana as part of an investigation into an Adrian-based Christian militia group [referred to as Hutaree below], a person familiar with the matter said.

. . .

Mike Lackomar, of Michiganmilitia.com, said both The Southeast Michigan Volunteer Militia and the Michiganmilitia.com were not a part of the raid.

Lackomar said he heard from other militia members that the FBI targeted the Hutaree after its members made threats of violence against Islamic organizations.

. . .

One of the Hutaree members called a Michigan militia leader for assistance Saturday after federal agents had already began their raid, Lackomar said, but the militia member — who is of Islamic decent and had heard about the threats — declined to offer help.

(Seven arrested in FBI raids linked to Christian militia group, The Detroit News, 03/28/10)

In other news:

Louisiana Entergy said it would have no comment on it’s recent proclamation made in a closed door meeting that Entergy wanted to operate in an open and transparent manner. According to one Entergy lawyer the comments were made as part of an off the record policy meeting. “We need to make sure folks feel free to say what they mean and mean what they say,” began a prepared statement from Louisiana Entergy’s headquarters, “And to have an open and transparent discussion requires we allow people the leeway to say what they mean away from the glare of openness and transparency.”

Elsewhere Louisiana Entergy is accusing the Vermont Senate of undermining the ability of witnesses to say what they mean and mean what they say. In a prepared statement that was fondled lovingly by Vermont Governor Douglas, Entergy asked “How can we be sure of what we’re hearing every time the Vermont legislature forces the likes of the Gundersens to testify in public? How can we be sure the Gundersens aren’t being forced to mollycoddle some 1960s hippy era left wing anti-American agenda when they’d rather tell you the truth .. Entergy Yankee should be re-licensed for 200 years and Dick Cheney was a wonderful president?”

Vermont Lt. Gov. Dubie, who had said yesterday that secretive meetings were a bad thing, left a private meeting with Douglas and made this statement: “We need to have more closed door meetings. I don’t understand why, but there it is.”

Former Chittenden State Senator Jim Condos will formally announce his candidacy for Secretary of State this Wednesday the 31st at 12:30 pm in the Cedar Creek Room of the Vermont Statehouse. He’ll join Charles Merriman of Middlesex who has been actively campaigning in Democratic Party circles in the primary.

So, Condos or Merriman? Who’s your early favorite and why (or is it way too early to have a favorite)?

UPDATE #1: NRC  has basically verified all this. Listen to this phone call.

* * *

Once again the NRC is up to its old antics of creating secret meetings for the privileged few it deems as stakeholders.  NRC’s alleged Government-to-Government meeting is in direct violation of federal and state Sunshine Laws, the NRC Chair’s commitment to NRC transparency and inclusiveness, and President Obama’s promise for Change to the electorate to usher in a new era of openness in our federal democracy.

According to the private email sent by the NRC to selected public officials:

The meeting is closed to members of the public and the media and it will not be publically noticed.  The meeting is open to elected State/Town officials or a member of their staff and selected representatives from your State agencies.  The purpose of the meeting being closed is to provide you an opportunity to have an open and frank discussion, ask questions and express your concerns.  Our goal is for the invitees to feel comfortable in an environment that won’t lead to possible misquotes in the media or misunderstandings with your constituents.

The initial email sent out by NRC included a PDF document detailing the meeting.  I have pasted the entire PDF at the bottom of this post.  

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, REGION I

VERMONT YANKEE GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT MEETING

Dear:

You are cordially invited to attend a government-to-government meeting among the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); representatives of various Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts state agencies; and Federal and local government officials from the communities surrounding the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. At this meeting, NRC will discuss its independent inspection of Entergy’s groundwater initiative program and the NRC’s review, to date, of the activities related to the recent tritium leak at the Vermont Yankee site.

The NRC is providing this information in advance of the public release of its inspection report on

this subject to better equip government stakeholders to answer questions they may receive from their constituents. The meeting will be limited to elected officials, or their staff, to best facilitate an open and courteous discussion and will not be open to the public or the media.

UPDATE #2:

From the comments:

   At a minimum . . .

. . . I expect the Democratic candidates for Governor with the exception of Matt Dunne who is not an elected official to send staff to this meeting. Why should Dubie get a pass? He should be there with a tape recorder too.

This meeting must be recorded in accordance with Vermont’s Open Meeting laws. If these four Vermont government officials send their staff, then all records. . . are public documents. . .

I want to see all four elected candidates commit to upholding open government on one of the biggest liabilities the Douglas administration is hoisting on Vermont’s taxpayers and all of us rate payers.

This is a really good idea!

Do you want to know what is happening? Time to get on the phone to Susan Bartlett, Deb Markowitz, Doug Racine & Peter Shumlin.  There is no excuse for them, or someone representing them, not to be at that meeting protecting Vermont’s interests.  

These entities have proven that they can never be trusted behind closed doors. Can we trust our elected representatives to attend and give a full accounting? Let’s find out.

* * *

UPDATE #3:

The Times Argus has now picked up this story:  

No wonder Entergy feels it is legitimate business to hold private press conferences  as detailed by Ed in his Green Mountain Daily blog or allege that they have conducted an-independent-legal-review as detailed by Shay Totten in his March 3, 2010 Seven Days column entitled Old Habits Die Hard.

Ironically, my sources have informed me that the NRC meeting arranged to be held at the Keene Country Club in Keene, NH on the evening of April 14, allegedly includes a select list of attendees from the towns within the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).  To quote from the email:

The attendees will include State, Federal, Congressional and local (town selectmen) representatives from the districts within the 10 mile EPZ of the power plant.

Yet, to date, towns like  Brattleboro, Hinsdale, Guilford, Marlboro, and Halifax are not on the email address list.  Is there another list?  

Could it be that the other towns have received a separate email?  

Or is the NRC selecting those towns it deems stakeholders?  

With a uniquely crafted NRC presentation leaving out the details about Entergy’s knowledge of the tritium leak for more than one-year prior to the spreading plume and leaving out the latest validated science on tritium whose to complain about the hundreds of gallons of tritiated water floating around Entergy Nuclear’s Vermont Yankee (ENVY) site or for that matter the Connecticut River.  See the report on the JFO website detailing ENVY knowledge of its buried pipes entitled A Chronicle of Issues Regarding Buried Tanks and Underground Piping at VT Yankee.  Read the accurate science on Tritium in which Dr. Bertell says that “dilution has never been, and will never be the solution for pollution.” The health effects of tritium by Dr. Bertell.

While the NRC has been notorious in calling for closed meetings under all types of circumstances, this circumstance does not seem to fit the intent of the Sunshine Act 5 U.S.C. 552.b.  If by some peculiar twist of NRC legal interpretation or promulgation of a new regulation as the NRC is wont to do, NRC has the right to call for a closed meeting like this one, such a meeting flies directly in the face of NRC Chairman Jaczko’s proclaimed commitment to President Obama’s January 21, 2010 memorandum on transparency and open government.

Speaking at the 22nd Annual Regulatory Information Conference in Rockville, Md, March 18, 2010, Chairman Jaczko said,

I believe that all of this scrutiny and attention makes it even more important that we conduct the public’s work in an open and transparent manner.

Furthermore, let me quote from the NRC’s-own-website which states:

Throughout his tenure on the Commission, Dr. Jaczko has focused on the NRC being a decisive safety regulator with the confidence of the public.  He has worked to have the agency clearly communicate with the public and its licensees.

Dr. Jaczko firmly believes that the NRC should be as open with information as possible to best accomplish its mission of protecting public health and safety and the environment.  Because he believes public involvement strengthens the formulation of public policy, Dr. Jaczko has encouraged all stakeholders – including licensees, vendors, state and local governments, interest groups, and the general public – to participate in NRC policy-making efforts.

Whether or not this secret meeting shows that the NRC commissioners are simply giving lip service to President Obama, in spite of Chairman Jaczko’s word to the contrary, the meeting is in direct opposition to Dr. Jaczko’s public commitment to open and transparent process made at the NRC’s March 18, 2010 Regulatory Information Conference.

Dr. Jaczko’s complete speech may be found at here.  In an excerpt he said,

I believe that all of this scrutiny and attention makes it even more important that we conduct the public’s work in an open and transparent manner.

Over the past few months, we have moved forward with implementing the President’s Open Government Directive. As an independent agency, we were not required to comply with this Directive, but we have done so because it’s in line with our historic organizational commitment to openness and transparency. This is an area that will always require our continuing focus. We can’t simply check a few boxes on a form, and then declare ourselves open and transparent. We have to continually explain to the public what we are doing, how we are doing it, and why we are doing it.

Our staff has done much good work in this area by reaching out to the public and to our stakeholders in developing new regulations and explaining our implementation. Consistent with that approach, I hope that over the next few months the Commission will begin to meet more frequently in public to deliberate and vote on matters under consideration. I believe that this kind of openness and transparency will build public confidence in the agency by highlighting our strengths: the hard work and dedication of the staff, and the diligence of the Commission.

Finally, I believe that this secret meeting meeting is also a violation of New Hampshire’s open meeting regulations that states,

Openness in the conduct of public business is essential to a democratic society.

The purpose of this chapter is to ensure both the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of all public bodies, and their accountability to the people.

Which government meetings are open to the public?

The law states that all gatherings of a quorum of members of a public body for the purpose of deliberating and deciding public policy.

Notable exemptions to this definition include:

• collective bargaining strategy and negotiation

• consultation that would fall under the attorney-client privilege

• single party caucuses

• circulation of draft documents that merely finalize decisions made in open meetings.

What government bodies are subject to the laws?

The act defines government body as any agency of the state or any of its political subdivisions. This definition explicitly includes the legislature, the executive council and all boards of other state agencies and political subdivisions. The act also includes non-profits corporations whose sole member is a public agencies.

For the record, I want to state three items:

• First, in addition to founding Fairewinds Associates in 2003, I began my career as a newspaper journalist since 1991 and have continued to free-lance since 1996.

• I am married to nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen, who is a member of the Vermont Yankee Public Oversight Panel, and chief engineer with Fairewinds Associates.  Our firm has a contract with the Joint Fiscal Office.  

• The material provided herein was provided to me in my role as a journalist, and was not provided to Arnie in his role as a panel member or to us in our contractual role with JFO.

Due to my paralegal work in nuclear safety, engineering and reliability as well as my ongoing work as a journalist and blogger with Green Mountain Daily, I recently asked again to be on a press call and to receive press releases from NRC Region 1.  I had several recent emails with Region 1 spokesperson Neil Sheehan, who said, “This was an informational briefing for media outlets. As such, only reporters were on the call.”  And, “I’ll have to take a look at that web site. I’ve been doing this for 13 1/2 years and have never heard from a reporter for the Green Mountain Daily.”

Ironically even the media has been left out of this little NRC New Hampshire junket.  

You may remember that Sheehan is the same spokesperson who claimed that the leaking and crashing cooling towers were simply “more sagging, deformation in some of the wood.”

And that was the official line until actual images were posted by Phil Baruth on Vermont Daily Briefing.

 

If I knew how to post a PDF in full I would, but here is the whole letter cut and pasted.  Unfortunately the Agenda does not format correctly:

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

475 ALLENDALE ROAD

KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-1415

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, REGION I

VERMONT YANKEE GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT MEETING

Dear:

You are cordially invited to attend a government-to-government meeting among the U. S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); representatives of various Vermont, New Hampshire

and Massachusetts state agencies; and Federal and local government officials from the

communities surrounding the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. At this meeting, NRC will

discuss its independent inspection of Entergy’s groundwater initiative program and the NRC’s

review, to date, of the activities related to the recent tritium leak at the Vermont Yankee site.

The NRC is providing this information in advance of the public release of its inspection report on

this subject to better equip government stakeholders to answer questions they may receive from their constituents. The meeting will be limited to elected officials, or their staff, to best facilitate an open and courteous discussion and will not be open to the public or the media.

The meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 14, 2010, at the

Keene Country Club, located at 755 West Hill Road in Keene, NH. Prior to the meeting, the

NRC will host an informational poster board session from 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Registration

will begin at 5:30 p.m. Staff from the NRC’s Region I office will present information on the

NRC’s independent inspection activities and assessment of Entergy’s groundwater investigation. The NRC has also invited our federal partners from the Environmental Protection

Agency and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to be present to answer questions

pertinent to their agencys’ mission. A preliminary agenda is enclosed.

Please RSVP, by April 5, 2010, by sending the enclosed form via e-mail to Nancy McNamara at

Nancy.McNamara@nrc.gov or by faxing the completed form to (610) 337-5349. This form may

also be used to provide preliminary questions in advance of the meeting. Please indicate on

your registration form if you will attend in person or send a member of your staff selected in your place. Based on the number of invitees and limited space, we respectfully request that you limit participation to two individuals.

2

We look forward to meeting with you on April 14. If you have any questions about our planned

meeting, please contact Nancy McNamara at (610) 337-5337.

Enclosures: As Stated

Sincerely,.

Darrell J. Robe ,Director

Division of Reactor Safety

US NRC GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT MEETING

April 14, 2010, 6:00 p.rn. – 9:00 p.m.

AGENDA

5:30 – 6:30     Registration

6:00 – 6:30     Poster Board Information Session

6:30 – 6:40     Welcome

               Meeting Structure

6:40 – 6:50     Nuclear Engineering Institute

               Ground Water Initiative

6:50-7:10       Vermont Yankee Groundwater Program

7:10 -7:30      Q&A

7:30 -7:45      Break

7:45 – 8:20     Vermont Yankee Groundwater      

                  Contamination

8:20-8:30       NRC Ongoing Activities

8;30-9:00       Closing Remarks

9:00 – 9:30     Staff Available for Questions

Staff available for Questions:

John White

James Noggle

Darrell Roberts

It’s not often that I find myself agreeing with  Emerson Lynn; but because I understand the value of having a local independent newspaper I like to give him credit on the rare occasions when I think he gets it right.  With this in mind, his editorial in Friday’s Messenger (also VT Tiger), addressing Douglas’ suspension of the  Vermont Quality Seal Program is worthy of mention here.  It appears that this is one gubernatorial budget cut to which Mr. Lynn takes exception, as well he should.

Everyone seems to agree that credibility of the Seal and the Vermont “brand” as a whole has been undermined by a lack of meaningful regulation. Unlike Governor Douglas, those who recognize the intrinsic value of Vermont’s reputation for excellence know that the answer is not to eliminate the program altogether, but rather to establish  a regulatory process that will restore confidence in the Seal.  This should not have to be done at the expense of education or social service funding. Since all would benefit from the enhanced market prestige that a meaningful and effective quality assurance program would bring to Vermont products,  funding might be efficiently managed as a shared cost of doing business in Vermont.   In a state that still needs much improvement with regard to joblessness, employment created in the process should be regarded as a plus rather than a burden.

On every possible occasion Douglas has loudly proclaimed his lack of confidence in Vermont’s viability; and his opposition to anything resembling business regulation is well-known.  It is therefore not surprising that he would be willing, even eager to abandon the Vermont Seal of Quality Program rather than embracing the kind of regulation that would actually validate the Seal.

Democratic gubernatorial candidates Deb Markowicz and  Doug Racine quickly went on record opposing the Governors’ position, which Markowicz describes as “anti-business;” and in an interesting departure from his usual position on the Governor’s coattails, even the Lt. Governor has objected to the proposal to scrap the Quality Seal.  

This is one issue on which Vermonters of every stripe should be able to agree.  Vermont’s economic future will be built on the reputation of its products and services.  Doing everything possible to defend and further that reputation should be a high priority for the Governor’s office, no matter who happens to occupy it.