The outcome was never in doubt and the vote was unanimous. Still, after it was cast, the committee members gave themselves a quiet round of applause. They thought they’d done something important.

Maybe they had, even though it isn’t clear whether the bill they reported out last week will become law, and even if it does, its direct, material, impact will be quite limited.

It’s the indirect, not-so-material impact that might be historic.

The bill was S-222, “An act relating to recognition of Abenaki bands and groups as tribes.” Considering that a four-year-old statute (S.117, signed into law May 3, 2006) already recognized the Abenaki  and other Native Americans living in the state as a “minority population” it’s reasonable to ask why the new bill is necessary at all, much less why it arouses enthusiasm.

But in the view of the Abenaki and their supporters, notably Sens. Vincent Illuzzi, a Derby Republican, and Hinda Miller, a Burlington Democrat, there were two flaws in the earlier law. One is very practical: the language didn’t meet the federal requirements to qualify the works of Abenaki artists and craftspeople as “Native American.” The designation can bring higher prices.

Besides, being recognized as a minority group isn’t the same as being recognized as a tribe. This year’s bill grants formal recognition as tribes to the state’s four Abenaki bands – the St. Francis Sokoki Band in the Swanton area ;the Koasek Traditional Band around Newbury; the Nulhegan Band of the Northeast Kingdom; the ELNU Abenaki Tribe in southern Vermont.

If the law passes, each of these bands will be empowered to “refer to itself as a recognized tribe,” according to the bill.

Actual recognition as a tribe is one of the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs requirements for the “Native American” arts and crafts designations. But to the Abenaki, the new bill may be less  important for what it would officially do for them than for what it would effectively say to them: You are here. And you are here not just as individual members of “a minority population,” but as distinct communities.

The long-term social and political consequences of that statement are uncertain, and their benefits open to debate. There are, after all, several other “minority populations” in Vermont, none of which get a similar official designation.

On the other hand, the Abenaki were here first, perhaps since as early as 1100. Unlike the other minorities (or the majority, for that matter) some of whom came here because they were systematically mistreated elsewhere, the Abenaki were systematically mistreated right here in Vermont, so mistreated that at one point they were all but obliterated.

Or, in the view of some scholars, actually were obliterated,  at least ceasing to exist as tribe within Vermont’s borders. Such was the conclusion of a report issued by the Vermont Attorney General’s office in 2002, when one of the Abenaki bands petitioned for tribal recognition from the federal government.

In a summary of the report it filed with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Attorney General’s office noted that “around the time of the American Revolution, ((Abenaki) retreated to (their) home base in Quebec.  Then, over the next two hundred years, there were very few observations of Indians in Vermont, and these were mostly sightings of visiting Indians.” In the 19^th Century, the report said, the ancestors of the  petitioners “were  indistinguishable from the general population in Vermont,” and that while some “appear in the census records…they are not listed as Indian.”

Assistant Attorney General Michael McShane said these comments were made solely in the context of the specific guidelines for federal recognition, and did not mean that state officials were denying the existence of the Abenaki now or in the past.

“The question is what do you use for the definition of a tribe,” McShane said. “The Federal Government says it has to have been an autonomous and existing entity from colonial times to the present in an organizational sense. That they failed to prove. But nobody’s saying there aren’t people who live in Vermont who have claimed, probably legitimately, Native American ancestry.”

The distinction seems to make sense in law, especially to officials who worry that federal designation could lead to gambling casinos and land claims as has been true in other states. But some Abenaki were simply insulted.

“They said the Abenakis were genetic, political, and cultural fakes,” said Fred Wiseman, a Johnson State College professor and Abenaki activist. Though not the message state officials intended, it seems to have been the one many Abenaki heard, and their resentment was intensified by turmoil in the state’s Commission on Native American Affairs, which went through three directors in four years.

Whether there has been a continuing Abenaki community in Vermont could be one of those questions that can never be conclusively answered. That 2002 Attorney General’s report was based on standard historical research, which failed to find documentation that such a community existed. So perhaps it didn’t. Or maybe, even before the discredited “eugenics” movement of the 1920s victimized so many Indians, the Abenaki were hiding signs of their identity, to the point ofnot telling Census Bureau agents that they were Indians.

It’s happened before. In 15th Century Spain, Jews converted to avoid getting burned at the stake, lived outwardly Christian lives, but secretly observed  Jewish rituals at home.

Whatever happened in the past,  no one doubts that there are now several thousand Vermonters who have some Abenaki ancestry and who consider themselves Abenaki. That could explain why there was no opposition when the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs approved the bill last week.

But there are still complications, based on the continuing worry that something in the bill might provide a pathway for federal recognition of a Vermont tribe. McShane said he asked the committee to remove two sentences that he feared might “open up the whole question of federal recognition.”

The committee did not comply.

“It’s his (McShane’s) job to worry,” said Hinda Miller, the bill’s chief sponsor. “We appreciate him being the watchdog. We did our own research. We don’t think this will be a real problem.”

Miller and Mark Mitchell of Barnet, an Abenaki and a former head of the Native American Commission, both said it would be all but impossible for any Abenaki band to meet the criteria for federal recognition., and that, at any rate the state could block Indian gambling casinos or land claims.

McShane was not so sure.

“You get into this whole very complicated issue,” he said. “States may be able to regulate some of it. This defies easy answers.”

Miller said the bill would probably be on the Senate calendar today (Friday). There is a companion measure in the House (H. 124, sponsored by Rep. Michel Consejo of Sheldon Springs.

Whatever happens, the Abenaki will once again be defined by others.  “Indians don’t have the right to self-identify,” Fred Wiseman noted. “We have to be recognized by white people.”

Things are getting a little strange over in Burlington.

To which many a Vermonter would say: “So what else is new?” These are the folks who like to point out that Chittenden County is a nice place because it’s right next to Vermont.

But let’s not be divisive; it’s one state, and we’re all in it together. And considering that the latest Burlington strangeness was inspired by politics, known to bring out the strange in men and women all over the world, we non-Burlingtonites (Burlingtonians?) should refrain from acting in a mean-spirited manner.

But that doesn’t mean we have to ignore the obvious.

Start with Mayor Bob Kiss’s assertion on election night that the outcome “doesn’t play out as a referendum on this administration.”

Uh, actually, Mr. Mayor, it did. Your party lost  (pending a recount) a Council seat in its Ward 2 stronghold. Your party’s pet political ploy – instant run-off voting – got rejected. Your administration’s handling of the Burlington Telecom mess was certainly one reason Republican Kurt Wright breezed to an easy victory over incumbent Democrat Russ Ellis in Ward 4.

Sounds like the functional equivalent of a referendum on the administration.

In the interests of charity, it should be acknowledged that Kiss was acting like a very conventional politician (which, come to think of it, is what he is). Even extraordinary politicians  seem incapable of calling a setback by its rightful name. Recall that both Ronald Reagan (in 1982) and Bill Clinton (in 1994) were asked the day after the Mid-term elections whether their party’s defeats indicated public displeasure with their policies. No, both said. Yes, was the correct answer.

True, you can’t expect any politician (or non-politician) to be that candid. But wouldn’t it have been refreshing if one of them had said something like, “well, it wasn’t a ringing endorsement, was it?”

But the Mayor was not the only self-deluded politician in town last week. No sooner had the votes been counted than Councilor Ed Adrian, a Ward 1 Democrat, said Kiss should resign.

Resign? He’s the duly elected mayor. In a democracy, elected officials who are not seriously ill or been convicted of a crime should not resign. We should not let them off so easily. Furthermore, we should not let the voters off so easily. They should pay more attention to whom they elect, on the assumption that the winner will serve out his/her term. Voters should understand that they are going to be stuck with their choice until that term ends.

(OK, right across the lake there is a possible exception because Gov., David Paterson (a) has been charged with offenses that are not frivolous; and (b) was never elected governor. But those are peculiar circumstances. Even Burlington is not as strange as New York State).

In addition to political delusion, some Burlngtonians seem to suffer from hypersensitivity. When Kiss blamed the loss of instant runoff voting on the “naysayers” of the New North End, Ward 7 Councilor Paul Decelles, the Republican who represents part of that neighborhood, pronounced himself “appalled.” The Mayor’s statement, he said, was “beyond contempt”  The New North End, he reminded Kiss, was part of Burlington, and “not in Colchester.”

Touchy, touchy. If in fact the denizens of Ward 7 got their noses out of joint over Kiss’s comment, they need to grow up. Maybe they didn’t but Decelles decided to get in on the whining craze anyway.

Again, he was not alone. The people (or, probably, just the mayor and some self-appointed spokespersons) of Las Vegas executed a hissy fit last month after President Barack Obama told a New Hampshire audience, “you don’t blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you’re trying to save for college.” Outraged, a Las Vegas newspaper wondered “why the president of the United States continues to use Las Vegas as an applause line in speeches about wasted money.”

But where do the folks out there think you go to blow a bunch of cash? Akron? Topeka? Perth Amboy?

Or maybe Colchester.

If you live in the nation’s sybaritic capital (or in the North End, for that matter) at least a minimal thickness of skin is recommended.

_______________________________________________

Last week, the News Guy was on the radio, on the WDEV-FM morning call-in show hosted by Mark Johnson, who mentioned that a new poll about public opinion on the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant was about to be released.

“Who took it?” Was the first reaction from this corner. “You have to be careful about polls commissioned by interest groups.”

The poll came out later that day, justifying the caution. It was taken by a market research company called Infogroup ORC (which just this week was bought by CCMP Capital Advisor, a New York based private equity firm for some $635 million) on behalf of the Civil Society Institute.

The Institute seems to be a lively group of folks who do some valuable work. But they are unquestionably anti-nuclear, and it shows. Among the poll’s questions were whether respondents would support closure of Vermont Yankee in 2012 “assuming that a combination of increased energy efficiency, clean energy, such as hydroelectric, wind and solar, and natural gas could be used to offset the electricity from the reactor.”  Another was whether they would support closing the plant in 2012 “assuming that many new jobs could be created through investments in new clean technologies, such as hydroelectric, wind and solar.”

Would you believe that very large majorities replied that under those circumstances they would shut down Yankee? And would you agree to give away your car “assuming” it would be replaced by a chauffeur-driven limousine with a fully-stocked bar and a drop-down table constantly refilled with caviar canapés, with an all-expenses-paid, two-week trip to the Riviera thrown in as an added inducement?

The irony is, of course, that it isn’t necessary to hype anti-VY sentiment in the state these days. As demonstrated by the neutrally worded poll taken by Research 2000 last month, and by reaction to the recent State Senate vote not to relicense the plant, most Vermonters would be happier without it

But the hyperbole in this poll was so bizarre that it would felt right at home in…well, in Burlington.

The News Guy is going to (sort of) violate his usual policy today to (sort of) take a position on a bill before the Legislature.

As regular readers know, what the computer nerds call the default position of this site is to inform and to analyze, not to advocate or oppose. There is no shortage of advocates and opponents, hence no need to add to their number.

Besides, to the reporter, casting the same jaundiced eye on advocates and opponents is what comes naturally; joining either side does not.

Worse, in this case, the joining, however conditional, leaves the News Guy vulnerable to accusations of acting out of self-interest. The accusation would not entirely without foundation. The case about to be made here is being made out of the conviction that it is in the interest of the general public. But there is no doubt that it is in the interest of the news business and its practitioners, all of whom have a vested interest in public information being…well, public. That’s why some of them – including the publisher of the Rutland Herald and Barre/Montpelier Times Argus and the editorial page of the Burlington Free-Press — have come out in opposition to H 331, which is likely to get final approval from the Vermont House of Representatives Tuesday.

This post is going to stop just short of outright opposition. The bill, which would allow big-money contributions to the State College system and the University of Vermont to remain anonymous, is complex. It purports to have protections against the most likely abuses. Corporations would not be allowed make anonymous donations, not would individuals doing business with the colleges or UVM.

But just who would decide whether a donor was doing such business seems absent from the legislation, as does how and through what agency the donation would be either returned or revealed.

It is probably true that the colleges and UVM would raise a little less money if all donations of $10,000 or more were a matter of public record. Believe it or not, some folks don’t want their generosity known. A Free Press article last month quoted UVM spokesman Enrique Corredera explaining, “some do so out of humility. Some wish to avoid unwanted solicitation for donations. And, increasingly, donors wish to maintain anonymity to protect the privacy and personal safety of themselves and their families.”

Well, no doubt all that happens. But you know what else happens? A lot more than any of that other stuff?

People hide what they’re doing because they have something to hide. They keep their names from the public because they don’t want the public to know what they are doing. And they don’t want the public to know what they’re doing because they think the public will disapprove. The public might think that the big-money donors are being at least as selfish as generous; that they have an angle; that some of those gifts come with a price.

The public will so think because it is true, often enough if not usually. Any time rich and powerful people (although the rule may also apply to poor and weak people) are allowed to act in secret, some of them will act in their own interest, not the public’s.

Before the lawmakers vote Tuesday, they might take a look at the impacts of anonymous donations at the University of Oregon and the University of Louisville.

……..

The Oregon story is easily available at the News Guy’s occasional collaborator, the news web site VT digger, in a story by Donald M. Kreis about the new $200 million basketball arena and nearby 40,000-square-foot tutoring center for athletes on the campus in Eugene.

There’s no anonymity about the Knight Arena, named for Phil Knight, the head of the Nike shoe empire, and a big contributor to the university. But University officials are not revealing the cost of the other building, the Jaqua Academic Center for Student Athletes, or who is financing it.

“When donors call the shots…outside the normal requirements of public scrutiny, Kreis warned, athletic boosterism can too often become (a university’s) driving strategic priority.”
The University of Louisville is the alma mater of Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican who is the Senate Minority Leader, and is now home to the McConnell Center for Political Leadership.

Among the Center’s contributors, whose names were kept secret at first, was at least one company that benefitted from “earmarks” McConnell shepherded through Congress, and others with close ties to the senator. As revealed by the web site of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, When the Louisville Courier-Journal sued to get the names of the donors, the Kentucky Supreme Court allowed the University to maintain the anonymity of those who had already contributed, but not of future donors, who, the court noted “may not simply wish to conceal their identities, but rather may wish to conceal the true purposes of their donation.”

Because the secrecy of corporate donations would not be protected by the Vermont bill, the situations are hardly identical. But that doesn’t mean there won’t be those who “wish to conceal the true purposes of their donation.”

It isn’t even necessary to do business with a university to corrupt it. Consider the possibility that the wealthy head of a pharmaceutical or biomedical company makes a secret donation to UVM to finance a health research center. Having put up the money, he has some say in who runs and staffs the center. The director and the researchers will know who buttered their bread, even if the public does not.

What this health care mogul might have bought himself is a study that concludes that the new product his company is about to take to market is a safe and efficacious cure for fallen arches, lower back pain and unrequited love, when a panel of unbiased doctors might have found it as helpful as soda pop. Neither the donor nor his company would have done a shred of business with the University.

Whoever doubts such a thing can happen is invited to Google “medical research fraud,” and prepare for several hours of fascinating reading. And health research is one of the “spires of excellence” on which UVM is planning to concentrate as it rearranges itself for the future.

Members of the House ought take these dangers into consideration. And they ought not comfort themselves by the assurance nothing like that can happen here.

Absent public access and open records, it can happen anywhere