The final round goes to the Governor whose letter of July 28 indicates that he knew of our issues with Mr. Luneau before re-appointing him and still stands by that appointment. I will add the letter to “comments” and urge everyone to diligently monitor Environmental Commission appointments in your own districts.

If Mr. Luneau has some science background I am unaware of that makes him particularly valuable in this capacity, I’d really like to know.

If not, it is difficult to escape the impression that he is being appointed repeatedly, despite local complaints, purely for political reasons.

______________________________________________________________

I quietly stewed over that non-response from the governor until today, when I sent yet another letter to Peter Shumlin, quoted below in “comments.”

………………………………………………………………………………………

Well, the squeaky wheel sometimes just gets put away in the closet.

I got my response from Peter Shumlin in this morning’s mail. I’ve added the text to the comments so you can judge for yourselves whether or not my concerns were addressed.

______________________________________________________________

I wrote to Governor Douglas a couple of times and, perhaps predictably, never got a response.  

I didn’t really expect that the Governor would, himself, take the time to write, but it seemed entirely reasonable to expect that someone in the office was responsible for replying to correspondence he received from the people of Vermont.  

“But that was Douglas,” I thought, confidently.  Peter Shumlin would be more engaged.

A few months ago, I got to thinking about whom the new governor might appoint to the District 6 Commission to review Act 250 applications.  On the Natural Resource Board website, the terms of the current members were posted, and two had been scheduled to expire in January of 2011.  As there was no update, I assumed no action had yet been taken and quickly sent off a concerned question about this in the “Ask the Governor” interface on his website.  In my haste, I made the erroneous assumption that this was the one-and-only way to contact the Governor electronically, because It  had been so when I attempted to e-mail Governor Douglas several years earlier.  

It was only after I hit “send” that I discovered this interface was soley for questions Governor Shumlin could answer by video, and a conventional e-mail was provided elsewhere on the site.   Nevertheless, I felt confident that whoever screens those e-mail questions would have the good sense to forward it to the appropriate reader or quickly shoot me a redirect reply.

With other fish to fry, I forgot about it for a few weeks.  Then I checked on the NRB website again and discovered that new appointments had already been made to the District 6 Commission, including the re-appointment of Dan Luneau, about whom I had specifically raised conflict of interest concerns in my e-mailed question.

Allowing the benefit of the doubt to the Governor, since I had expressed my concerns in the wrong electronic medium, I wrote the following letter and posted it by certified mail on May 31:

Dear Governor Shumlin,

It was with mixed feelings that I read the new roster for the District 6 Environmental Commission.  

While I applaud the inclusion of Julie Wolcott, whose professional credentials well-qualify her for this service, I am surprised and disappointed that Dan Luneau was reappointed as Chair.  Several weeks ago, I submitted an e-mail on the Governor’s website to express my concerns that  1) an environmental science background be represented among the three commissioners; and 2) Mr. Luneau, specifically, has family business ties that represent a conflict of interest with regard to development at Exit 20 of I-89.

The issue of Mr. Luneau’s conflict of interest has already been raised in the high-profile case of a permit issued to build a Walmart in that location.  Attorneys representing those opposed to the permit raised this concern in a timely manner before the proceedings began, but Mr. Luneau refused to recuse himself on that occasion.  

That permit is currently under appeal at the Vermont Supreme Court. Because more compelling arguments existed, the question of Mr. Luneau’s possible bias was not specifically raised in the SCOV filing.  Nevertheless, that potential conflict of interest remains a concern since Exit 20 continues to be the focus of large-scale development plans in Franklin County.

I encourage you to reconsider Mr. Luneau’s appointment, as his service in this quasi-judicial capacity will very likely lead to more challenges to Act 250 permits, engendering additional cost for all sides, including the State.

Thank your for your attention.  I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

I’m still waiting for a reply.

One would think that, before re-appointing a District Chair, especially in a development-sensitive district, the Governor would check to see if any issues had ever been raised about said appointee.