Vermont tea party frontman Paul Beaudry has indicated he will be leaving his far-right True North radio duties at WDEV to run as a Republican for the US House of Representatives against incumbent Democrat Peter Welch. He intends to make a formal announcement “on or before” April 26th. He will face a primary on the GOP ticket from Springfield businessman Keith Stern, who has run for office in the past as an independent and has indicated he may step aside if a stronger candidate emerges. Beaudry referred to Welch (and Stern) on the radio as “a fine gentleman.”

If you’ve heard any other names in circulation for any races of note, please share them in the comments below.

What a difference a couple of weeks can make.

Just a couple weeks ago, the Democratic-led Legislature seemed to be riding high. It was one year ago that Speaker Shap Smith engineered two unprecedented veto overrides, with historic connotations, over a Governor who had been thought to be politically omnipotent.  This year, Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin attained one of the Holy Grails of the Vermont left when the Senate went on record against Vermont Yankee’s relicensing.  This vote followed the amazing feat of transforming opposition to the plant into a mainstream opinion.

The tide has turned: those highly regarded legislative actions took place weeks ago and last year. Now, the Vermont left has been treated to a full-on attack in the form of the Challenges for Change (CfC) agenda. And, today we stand in the wasteland of the attack’s aftermath.

In this aftermath, every non-right interest group, from “centrist” business lobbyists to the traditionally more liberal advocates for labor or social services, is scrambling in the toxic, post-Challenges environment.

From last Tuesday’s open meeting on CfC at the state house (note: both of the programs described in the quote below, which have strong and consistent track records for creating good jobs for Vermonters, are slated for 100% funding cuts):

Mary Johnson of the VT Women’s Business Fund said the fund “uniquely, quietly, powerfully puts women to work. … Many have heard of Bangladesh supporting women w/tiny loans. Why does gender-specific support of business owners work? Because women specifically channel the money to family and community.”

A representative from the Community Action Agencies of Central Vermont, said: “We support the underlying philosophy and intent, but are perplexed that the implementation has called for the elimination of the micro-business development program. It’s the most important tool in moving low income people out of poverty. We have demonstrated outcomes – 120 full time jobs per year. 830 people served per year. All this at the astonishing rate of $2k+ per job created. Why are we targeting this? We hope you reconsider this very valuable program.  90% of jobs created are retained after 5 years. It’s a clear success.

Even the right wing has gotten into the act.

CfC proposals were hidden from view and swept forward on an unprecedented legislative fast track, seemingly on blind faith. Now it appears that panicked Legislative leaders are desperately pointing fingers at the Governor; but to the insiders on the ground, that blame-game falls flat. The Governor doesn’t draw up legislation; nor did the Governor draw up what could be characterized as the “sneaky” legislative calendar. Statehouse intrigue is a function of relationships.  Now all those relationships are off-balance and the fallout has spread to voters.

Education, mental health, you name the issue and its community of advocates is standing in shock and anger, wondering how the Legislative leadership they had seen as allies could have engaged in such a cloak and dagger operation.

For example:

Nicole LeBlanc “The state is rushing to rebuild and restructure without thinking about the long term consequences to the developmentally-disabled services. The proposal is violating federal Medicaid law. The state is losing a lot of federal funds from these proposed cuts.”

[next speaker, speaking about unemployment and other services which will be shifted from real humans in community-accessible offices to a centralized phone service:]

“Why is it happening now? Because there’s a shortage.

“And who’s getting cut? The people on the bottom.

“Where’s the cost savings coming from? If you don’t get through when filing for benefits, it can be a while before you can try again. Maybe it’s if people get frustrated and don’t stay on the phone to get through the long hold process, then the state saves benefits for as many days as it takes for someone finally to get through.”

As far as the respective leaders go, Senator Shumlin always walks a binary line with voters who want to believe the best of him, but find it too easy to believe the worst accusations. What’s seen as complicity has flipped that equation for many.

With Speaker Smith, many progressive leaders find themselves reminded of their concerns about his ideological leanings when he first emerged as the House’s likely successor to Gaye Symington. Is it possible to deny Smith’s central role in the content as well as the strategy of the CfC push? Many throughout the State are questioning the Speaker’s role in the radical deconstruction of government under the guise of questionable spending goals. Who is the real Shap Smith?

It’s so bad, 7 Days’ Shay Totten has invoked the liberal lexicon’s ultimate j’accuse proclamation: “Are Vermont’s Pols Severing the Social Contract with Vermonters?”? To progressive ears, the charge of social-contract-shredding is one reserved only for the most dreadful of Republicans.

And the progressive intelligentsia at the Public Assets Institute have hard numbers to go with their scorn.

Many voters were already asked to swallow the very concept of the CfC agenda – even when it read as the antithesis of government; and an arbitrary, conservative-agenda-driven savings goal was seen as a shrunken financial square hole into which the rain-swollen round peg of real programs would be forced.

In the media coverage, one of the few legislators who spoke up at the time was Senator Racine, but despite his defiant peep, even he stepped into line and voted for the outlined approach when it was presented early in the session.  Of course he – and others – are speaking up now, but only after the whole enterprise has crashed and burned.

Unfortunately, there is no turning back, and the burned-out, pockmarked landscape is indeed different from the left’s previously green pastures. Many progressive advocates may no longer be willing to trust Smith. And, while Shumlin will step up and work to mitigate much of the worst excesses of CfC in the Senate, he may be viewed by many as doing it for politics rather than principle.

The impact on the Democratic gubernatorial primary is already underway, as we see the two of the three candidate legislators racing to differentiate themselves from the CfC agenda. The exception is Senator Bartlett, who as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee likely had the best view of the process all along, and continued to embrace the Douglas-Dubie Administration line, notably at a VDP State Committee meeting. And even faced with major backlash, Bartlett’s pronouncement is an incredibly patronizing admonition not to panic just because “change is scary.” More disturbing is the fact that she will likely be party to the rest of the program slaughter that will be accepted by the Joint Fiscal Committee after the Legislature goes home.

Outside the Legislature, political reality has caught up with Secretary of State Markowitz’s rhetoric. Since launching her campaign, Markowitz has seemingly been running against the Democratic Legislature as well as the current Douglas Republican administration.  Criticizing and campaigning against an active Legislature so popular with the Democratic base seemed foolhardy and politically backward. Now, such actions appear prescient. Former Senator Matt Dunne too may be well-positioned to run against the recent Montpelier political carnage as one who has been there, understands it, and does not want business as usual.

The CfC travesty may be only the beginning; for even if the worst aspects of this conservative-driven overreach, these damaging proposals, are somehow mitigated, that sense of unease and betrayal underscore a new Post Traumatic Stress Disorder that may shadow Democratic voters for months.  Such a stain upon the Democratic mantle may well position the Progressive Party for renewal and reinvigoration  just as it seemed to enter the twilight of its statewide relevance.

Many of us can hear the popping of celebratory champagne corks throughout GOP offices as the meltdown from Challenges for Change represents an act of explosive self-sabotage of historic proportions to Democrats throughout the State.

It’s sad that the Democrats decided to toe this particular frayed and timeworn Republican party line – since recent polling shows people are sick of the tired old “tax cuts are the only way” mantra, and they actually WANT tax increases. Two of those who testified last Tuesday called directly for tax increases. One taxpayer won the greatest applause of the night with one simple sentence:

A 2 cent tax on potato chips and sweetened drinks = 100 million dollars.

While one psychologist asked to be taxed more:

Give those of us with more resources the opportunity to help fill the budget hole, and do what Vermonters do best: help each other out. Many hands make light work.

And finally, we were reminded of the other “unmentionable” source of revenue by one speaker as his 2 minutes to testify came to an end:

Please include safeguards to prevent the administration from further cutting positions. Don’t walk out the door expecting the joint fiscal committee to [do the right thing].

…

I’m wearing this bright yellow “rainy day” coat as a not so subtle hint as to an alternative.

(NOTE: Diaries posted under the GMD user represent collaborative efforts of multiple admins.)

(NOTE: all quotes from the Tuesday, April 6 meeting at the State House are paraphrased, but as close to the intended meaning as possible. I still can’t type that fast… – M.)

( – promoted by JulieWaters)

When the “Challenges for Change” budget plan was unveiled earlier this month it was celebrated by the legislature and administration as a different and better way to cut costs.

Instead of just slashing budgets, the goal was to improve outcomes and save money by rethinking the way services are delivered. It turns out the process was neither different, nor better, and has led to another contentious budget process.

Challenges for Change is another example of why we must change the way we do things in Montpelier if we are going to get Vermonters working again and move the state forward.

First, it should not be celebrated that the state of Vermont is only now, eight months before the end of the governor’s fourth term in office, approaching the management of state government by looking at what we want to accomplish and then finding the most efficient and effective way to get the job done. Outcome based budgeting is what every successful business does and what I have done as Secretary of State for the past twelve years.

The fact that the budget cutting proposals were developed in secret, without public input on significant changes in public policy is more disturbing. The public was left largely in the dark. It was only when the Dover school board pushed to attend one of these secret meetings that the public even knew these discussions were going on. While the team selected by the governor to address education cuts eventually opened its meetings the remaining five teams, examining everything from mental health to regulatory reform, remained outside of public scrutiny.

[More after the fold]

So the fate of children’s health care, services for our seniors, the protection of our natural environment and even our job creation services were decided behind closed doors. The legislature, having voted on the plan without the specifics, is now in an unenviable position to either accept the administration’s flawed process or come up with alternatives in a matter of weeks.

One of the things I learned from working with every town in Vermont and with small businesses across the state is that top down decisions from Montpelier rarely work. When I first took office I traveled across Vermont and listened to the ideas small businesses had to improve the process of starting or expanding a business. I listened to professionals like nurses and real estate agents, engaged our state employees and talked with local officials. The ideas they came up with were central to the turnaround in the Secretary of State’s office, now nationally recognized for our innovation and customer service.

As the only candidate running for governor with executive experience in Vermont I understand budgets. I’ve managed an $8.5 million budget. I’ve made cuts, found efficiencies, eliminated waste and reorganized to do more with less – and I have also found ways to cut fees for small businesses and professionals.

As your Governor, we will do more with less, but we will not skimp on the services that make us a great state to live in-that keep us whole and prepare us for the future. I will carry a big ruler into office as governor and resize our government to put Vermont back on the right track. But I will do this as part of an open process, rather than through secret meetings.

I know that when we engage the best thinking of Vermont citizens, state employees, businesses and partner organizations we will come up with solutions that not only save tax dollars, but also better serve Vermonters.

   The Times Argus online poll asks: Do you understand Challenges for Change? Yes or No, this troubled me.

Like Challenges for Change itself the poll limited its possible responses . As of yesterday the poll results show, perhaps not surprisingly that  only about a quarter of  300+ respondents say, yes they actually understand C for C.  

Could roughly 75  people that said ‘yes’ all work for Public Strategies Group or are some in the legislature?  

Although sick of the race to the bottom aspect of the C for C  I checked out the 47 page  C for C pdf Progress Report. The report details seven “First Wave” charter units, think of them as the shock troops for the CforC program.

What follows are some notes on the robust alternative planning .  

Among three Challenge Outcomes and Proposed Measures for all “First Wave “ departments are nuggets of managerial guidance and brilliance such as: Increase employees’ engagement in their work. After years of layoffs and threatened layoffs by the governor this could be a stand alone challenge for change.    

Some specifics worth highlighting by dept. include:

Department of Liquor Control Additional revenue for the general fund through increased sales.

And a gift card program generating $50,000 in new revenue the first year of sales.

Dept of Fish and Wildlife initiatives include these goals: Generate additional revenues by promoting the sale of Department merchandise such as t-shirts, mugs, hats, books, posters, patches and stamps

And finally this, also for Fish and Wildlife, (which boggles the governmental entrepreneurial imagination):

if feasible, collaborate with VT Lottery Commission to develop new mutually beneficial products.

So during a major National recession, high unemployment and personal financial insecurity part of Vermont’s “First Wave “  plan for its “Better Deal” is actually increased liquor and gift card sales, and fish themed lottery tickets.  

(In keeping with GMD’s policy of promoting first-hand diaries from all gubernatorial candidates, here is the latest from Peter Shumlin. – promoted by Sue Prent)

Great news!  On April 7th S.88, the health reform bill I co-sponsored over a year ago, finally passed the Vermont Senate.  I’m grateful so many Vermonters have made their voices heard on this issue. Clearly, there is a widespread desire for meaningful, systemic reform of our health care system.  S.88, if enacted by the full Legislature, would set up a process that could move us toward universal, single payer health care in the next few years.

We still have work to do. Already, we’ve seen attempts to divert the bill toward incremental changes and delay it with unnecessary studies.  As President of the Senate and a member of the Appropriations Committee, I fought hard to ensure that the bill retained a strong single-payer component, and preserved an oversight board that would not be dominated by those opposed to reform.

I’m hopeful the House will recognize the strong bipartisan support S.88 received in the Senate, and heed the will of Vermonters as they move forward on this legislation. While S.88 is not as strong as the version I initially co-sponsored, the version passed by the Senate is far and away our best hope for controlling spiraling health care costs and making affordable health care available to all Vermonters.

When I think back on the events leading up to the Senate vote, I am reminded of the testimony of Dr. William Hsiao, the Harvard health policy economist I invited to Montpelier. Dr. Hsiao, possibly the world’s greatest expert on health system design, compared health care reform to making a quilt. He praised Vermont for making pieces of the quilt, but said we had no process for sewing the pieces together into an integrated whole.

I believe S.88 makes important strides toward sewing together Dr. Hsiao’s quilt. But in order for the Legislature to follow through, we need Vermonters to continue speaking out for health care reform.

We also need technical expertise. Dr. Hsiao has already indicated his interest in contracting with the State of Vermont to design a system that fits our unique political, economic, and social conditions. It is my hope that, if S.88 passes the full Legislature intact, we can hire Dr. Hsiao, or someone equally qualified, to be the architect of a universal health care system for Vermont. With all the details put in place over the summer, Vermont could well be on the verge of making history a year from today.

A final requirement for meaningful change is leadership. There are many opinions on what should be done, but sometimes in debating the details we lose sight of the overarching goal.  Good leadership means bringing the discussion back to fundamentals. That’s exactly what I tried to do in facilitating the negotiations between the Health Care Committee and the Appropriations Committee in deciding the language of S.88.

We need new leadership in the Governor’s office. Governor Douglas and Lieutenant Governor Dubie have shown no interest in universal health care reform. Even within my own party, there is often great hesitation and fear when it comes to proposing bold new measures. Change isn’t easy. But we can no longer watch while health care costs contribute to more and more bankruptcies. Piecemeal reform, while well-intentioned, has not solved and will not solve the greater problem that we face.

Let’s hope that S.88, combined with a groundswell of popular opinion and new leadership in the governor’s office, will propel us toward universal health care. The accomplishments so far, though just a beginning, offer a glimmer of hope. I’m proud to have been part of it. With your help, I look forward to greater success in the future.

(In keeping with GMD’s policy of promoting gubernatorial candidate’s first-person diaries to the front page, here is the latest from Susan Bartlett. – promoted by Sue Prent)

The biggest challenge when considering “Challenges for Change” is to stay calm and keep an open mind.

The important things to consider are the outcomes, not the administration’s ideas for how to get there. Challenges for Change is designed to eliminate drive-by budgeting and blind cuts.

The administration’s current proposal throws good programs under the bus.

Read on …

Several Senate committees, including the Appropriations committee that I chair, are looking at the administration’s ideas. I am pushing back, negotiating with the administration to make sure that we keep the programs that work. The programs that don’t work will be cut.

Challenges for Change is controversial because it is an earthquake shift in how government works. It demands that we reexamine everything from how we buy things, to what programs we pay for, in the light of results rather than intentions.

Everything we do must work to achieve the outcomes and be measurable.

I’ve heard, “We can’t do this, we can’t do that,” a lot in the past week. That says to me we need to keep government the same.

I strongly disagree.

For years I have heard from people in government and government-supported organizations. They have said many times they have ideas for how we can work better and cheaper. Now is the time for them to come forward with those ideas.

Now is not the time to say, “No, we can’t.” It is time to say, “This is how we will.”

We must save $38 million with Challenges for Change. It is an opportunity for the folks running the programs to find the savings. If they fail we’ll go back to budget cuts inflicted by the administration and next year we’ll have $75 million to add to the projected $100 million shortfall.

Change is scary. It is hard to re-imagine what we have done for years to find a new way, but that is exactly what we must do.

Meeting the outcomes of Challenges for change will require calm, open-minded leadership. I am that leader.

Let’s work together to bring new leadership to the governor’s office, to build a better future based on Vermont’s values and traditions.

(In keeping with GMD’s policy of promoting all gubernatorial candidates’ diaries to the front page, here is the latest from Matt Dunne – promoted by Sue Prent)

The Douglas administration has taken reckless advantage of the worst fiscal crisis in Vermont’s history to advance its own ideological agenda, using the Legislature’s well-intentioned “Challenges for Change” initiative as the vehicle to accomplish this.

I do not envy the position of my former colleagues in the House and Senate. We are facing the biggest budget deficit in history and at the same time Vermonters across the state are struggling. We need to rethink the way we do government so that we are using our limited resources as effectively as possible. However, in passing a budget that includes unnamed, massive cuts, the Legislature trusted that the Douglas Administration would come forward with recommendations that involved a thorough analysis of the implications and incorporated input from the affected stakeholders, and expected it to be clean of initiatives that smacked of partisanship. It is now clear that this trust was misplaced and the result is panic.

A family with an autistic child stopped me in the Statehouse, literally unsure how they can keep working at their jobs if support for their family is slashed as proposed. Communities are holding emergency meetings to determine how to fight the immediate closing of their schools. Planning commissions are poring over thick documents to find the policies slipped into the “Challenges for Change” plan that will gut environmental protections in the guise of “efficiency.”

Vermonters must engage with the Legislature now to assist in determining what is good policy, what are responsible budget cuts, and what is simply a “Trojan Horse” for an outgoing adminstration’s conservative agenda that could do irreparable damage to our valued way of life.

I have often been involved in difficult budget decisions during my 11 years in the Vermont legislature, my experience in business and academia, and my tenure as the head of AmeriCorps*VISTA (a 6,000 employee public sector organization). In my opinion, and based on these experiences, I believe that the Challenges for Change proposal represents:

1.) Radical change imposed under too short a timeline – With this legislation, neither lawmakers nor the public have sufficient opportunity to consider the wisdom and the impact of the proposed sweeping changes. With very short notice, entire programs with successful track records have been targeted for massive budget cuts or elimination.

2.) Penny wise and pound foolish government – The current fiscal crisis is being manipulated to privatize key aspects of state government and eviscerate important programs at a time when they’re needed most. For example, the state funding support for the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, which is a program that has actually created real economic growth and jobs, has been proposed for elimination. Beyond serving a need for effective economic development, this approximately $200k investment brings in well over $1 million of additional economic development support. Many other proposals to save money by “contracting for services” have no supporting evidence that this approach will achieve savings. Given the massive growth in temporary employees and contractors over the last few years, there is little confidence that this is anything but privatizing for its own sake. In fact, if history is any example, privatization may result in increased costs.

3.) Hidden agendas – Under the umbrella of “Challenges for Change,” the administration has pushed forward its long-envisioned proposal to massively restructure education in our state by super-sizing school boards, creating cookie cutter curriculum, and fundamentally destroying the relationship between the community and education that has long made Vermont’s schools strong. . . all to achieve only a paltry 1% cost savings. I commend the House education committee for standing strong on opposing mandates that will hurt children and our communities. There are many ways to reduce costs in Vermont education without rolling out a master plan for top down school consolidation and the elimination of the options parents currently have.

4.) Missed opportunities – There is not a front-line state worker who doesn’t have ideas on how to save tax dollars and run government more efficiently. The administration has clearly ignored recommendations that could reduce costs without cutting core services, leaving communities reeling, or destroying effective job creation programs. As just one example, over a year ago, VSEA employees and I recommended moving to cloud computing (http://bit.ly/2mwVfL) for our basic state business software. The cities of Washington D.C. and Los Angeles, both with larger populations than the whole state of Vermont, have switched to this efficient technology and saved millions of dollars. There are compromises with this kind of technology, but it can achieve back office cost reduction in a way that will not hurt the fundamental delivery of services. In fact, there is evidence that this kind of solution strengthens the ability for public employees to engage and serve the public.

5.) Dividing and trying to conquer – Cynically, the administration’s rollout of Challenges for Change has pitted state employees against the most vulnerable populations and economic development initiatives.

To reiterate, we absolutely need fresh thinking, transparency, and real change in the way we run government in Vermont. To make change happen, however, we need to engage stakeholders in the process, identify clear goals and then move towards those changes together. That is the Vermont way.

Moreover, if I learned anything from my nearly two decades of executive management experience, it is that in order to be successful in making effective transformational change, an organization needs to operate from a basis of trust; a belief that there are not ulterior motives, hidden agendas, or backroom deals. This administration and its process of rolling out the Challenges for Change proposal has damaged whatever trust might have remained between the Douglas administration and Vermonters.



There is no better example of why there needs to be change in Montpelier.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Kigoma, Tanzania.

Actually, we never even made it to Kigoma. Precision Air, one of only two airlines that flies to the remote region, had just suspended all flights for the next several weeks and the other airline was all booked.

No worries, we headed to Zanzibar instead….

Everywhere you look in Zanzibar there’s a bounty of fresh vegetables, fruit, and spices. One of the “Spice Islands”-a group of islands that supplied cloves, coriander, nutmeg, pepper, vanilla, and others to Europe in the 17th Century, Zanzibar still grows those spices in much the same way they were then-organically, without the use of chemical pesticides and artificial fertilizers, in response to consumer demand.

Later in our trip, back in Dar es Salaam, we met with Pancras Ngalason, Executive Director of Jane Goodall Center (JGI) in Tanzania, who explained how the Institute has evolved since it began in the 1970s as a center to research and protect wild chimpanzee populations in what is now, thanks to their efforts, Gombe National Park. In the early 1990s JGI realized that if it didn’t start addressing the needs of the communities surrounding the park, their efforts to conserve wildlife wouldn’t work. It was at that time, says Ngalason, that we “thought beyond planting trees” and more about community-based conservation.

JGI started working with communities to develop government mandated land use plans, helping them develop soil erosion prevention practices, agroforestry, and production of value-added products, such as coffee and palm oil. They like to say that their products are “Good for All”-good for farmers by providing income, good for the environment by protecting natural resources, and good for the consumer by providing a healthy product.

In Arusha, Tanzania, we met with the World Vegetable Center where researchers and farmers are working together to improve crop diversity, nutrition, and livelihoods through vegetables.”None of the staple crops,” says Dr. Abdou Tenkouano, the World Vegetable Center’s Regional Director for Africa, speaking of historically popular crops used to combat hunger like rice, wheat, maize, and cassava, “would be palatable without vegetables.” And vegetables, he says, “are less risk prone” than staple crops that stay in the field for longer periods of time. Additionally, according to the Center’s website, vegetable production generates more income on and off the farm than most other agricultural enterprises.

Though their air travel leaves something to be desired, like many places in Africa, Tanzania is a country rich in fresh vegetables, fruit, and innovations that help nourish people and the planet.

If you enjoy our weekly diary we invite you to get involved:

1. Comment on our 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.

{First, a cheap plug for my blog Senate Guru.}

40 days from today – on May 18 – we will see two HUGE primaries for U.S. Senate.  Even though these races aren’t in Vermont, they impact Democrats across the country and, well, the entire country as a whole.

In Pennsylvania, Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak will try to upset Republican-for-decades Arlen Specter.

In Arkansas, Democratic Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter will try to upset corporate lackey Blanche Lincoln.

Polling shows that both Specter and Lincoln are at risk of – if not likely to – hand these Senate seats over to far-right-wing Republicans. (And, even if these two retain the seats, that’s not much better on many key issues.)

Congressman Sestak and Lieutenant Governor Halter winning these primaries are critical to keeping these seats in truly Democratic hands. Your support can help make that happen!  Please hop over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page right away to make a contribution – an investment in the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to pull out an old expression – and show your support.

Thanks SO much for any support you can provide. 40 Days.

There’s still more devil in the details of Challenges for Change.  One of the proposed “efficiencies” is to eliminate the practice of inserting paid notices in 16 local newspapers whenever the state wants to change the Wetlands rules.  These notices serve to inform the public and offer them opportunities to participate in the process.  The cost for advertising, per rule-change, averages $2,000.; and last year, there were 60 occasions when these notices were required. The CFC proposal is to restrict notification to posting on the internet.  According to the Free Press, the annual savings is estimated at $100,000.; and Tom Evslin is quoted as saying:

Who could argue with that logic?  As is well-known by Mr. Evslin, we live in a state that is still famously underserved by high-speed internet; a state where a huge segment of the population still relies on newspapers to know what is happening locally.  It is true that, once high-speed internet is universally available in the state, and Vermonters evolve with the available technology, there may come a time when newspaper notifications become unnecessary; but to eliminate them now, when we know the population is demographically aging and therefore more inclined to get their news in traditional ways, will reduce the number of people who are engaged.  How many people in Vermont are going to make a daily visit to the State website to see “what’s new?”  If openness and accessibility are what we expect from our state government, this is a move in the wrong direction.

Like much of the number magic in “Challenges for Change,” the suggested savings of $100,000. is deceptively simple.  Even assuming the figure is accurate, it completely ignores the collateral losses of taking that $100,000. investment away from local newspapers.  That’s what advertising is, essentially: investment.  More small newspapers are succumbing to market pressures every year; and our communities are impacted by those losses.  We may not always like what we read in our local papers; but they still play an important role of connectivity in Vermont.   We can’t afford to lose that any more than we can afford to lose the associated jobs and tax dollars that those 16 local papers mean for Vermont.