If you can no longer bear the suspense, no, the News Guy was not admitted to the “Developmental and Environmental Regulation Seminar” sponsored by Associated Industries of Vermont Thursday.

Neither were any other reporters. At least two, one from the Burlington Free Press and one from Vermont Public Radio, had been told by telephone that wouldn’t be allowed in, so they didn’t show up.

Nobody else seems to have tried. Or cared.

Tough (or stubborn) bunch, that AIV. The combined censure of the News Guy, Shay Totten of Seven Days, St. Michael’s College journalism professor David Mindich (as reported in the Free Press), and even an uncharacteristically hard-hitting Free Press editorial did not shake AIV’s determination to hear speeches by the Secretary of Natural Resources and other senior state officials in secret.

Or maybe not so secret. This conference turned out to be even less a private, invitation-only, session than understood when its closed-to-the-press rule was condemned in Wednesday’s post (just scroll down). Anyone willing to pay the $45 fee could attend.

Come to think of it, a sneaky reporter who was a stranger to the event’s organizers (and one can always hire a ringer) could have paid the forty-five smackers and sat through the entire seminar. What with today’s technology, he could have surreptitiously filmed it and put the whole shebang on YouTube.

For all practical purposes, then, it was a public event, as well as a meeting between regulators and the owners of businesses they regulate. That made the ban on news coverage (and, especially, the acceptance of that ban by the public officials) even more objectionable. It also made the indifference of the rest of the state’s news outfits (excepting the Free Press, Seven Days, and VPR), more mysterious, if not more cowardly.

On the other hand, the all-but-public nature of the event meant there were people inside the meeting who were willing to talk to a reporter in the corridor outside. From their reports, the events within were useful, informative, and not at all shocking.

That YouTube, it seems, wouldn’t have been very interesting, much less the least bit scandalous.

Asked what he had said during his lunch speech, Natural Resources Agency Secretary Jonathan Wood said, “nothing different than if you’d been in the room,” an assessment confirmed by others.

Wood said he had not known the gathering would be closed to reporters until one of them, Candace Page of the Free Press, called him on Wednesday. Describing himself as an advocate of “a free and open society,” who cooperates with journalists, Wood said keeping reporters out of meetings did offer the advantage of allowing people to be more candid than they might be if they thought their remarks would be in the newspaper.

In politely denying the News Guy’s request to enter the meeting-room, AIV spokesman Bill Driscoll made the same point.

“Some people get intimidated,” he said. “They are private and shy about the press.” Having reporters in the room, Driscoll said, could stifle open discussion.

Their point can not be casually dismissed. But neither can this: People do what is in their interest, or at least what they think is in their interest. If IAV and its fellow-sponsors thought that their words and actions in that meeting would win them the approval of the public, they’d invite every reporter in the state and give them lunch for free. It is likely that one reason (though not the only one) they keep reporters out is that they’re not at all sure their words and actions will meet with public approval.

The subject of the meeting, after all, was “environmental regulation,” and many if not most of the business leaders in attendance want to weaken the state’s environmental regulations. Whether or not that is a wise outlook, it is in this state (and most the others) a decidedly minority outlook. Those advocating it probably want to minimize their visibility.

As mentioned Wednesday, the specific regulation (or set thereof) at issue now concerns areas of archeological significance. Or, more precisely, areas that might have archeological significance if we knew what was under them. Considering that some of these sites hold relics of people who lived in Vermont some 12,000 years ago, some people find them fascinating and important. Some do not.

The Agency of Commerce and Community Development has proposed changing the regulations for determining which sites get considered for possible architectural designation under Act 250. According to some archeologists, the proposed change in Section 4.2 would weaken protections because it removes the words “or potentially significant property or resource” from the list of criteria for considering whether a site should be examined for possible archeological significance.

Tayt Brooks, the Commissioner of Economic Development, Housing, and Community Affairs, who spoke at Thursday’s seminar, said there was “some confusion” over this language.

“The proposed rule does not change how we designate archeological sites,” he said, repeating earlier assertions that the administration is only interested in “clarification” of the permitting process.

Even John Groveman, general counsel for the Vermont Natural Resources Council, which opposes changing the regulations, conceded that this was “open to interpretation.” But Groveman said a provision in Section 4.7 requiring that some sites be designated “only in exceptional circumstances,” would prohibit – or at least discourage – looking for possible archeological finds in some areas. He also said the proposed change in the method of funding archeological searches threatened to cut off funding altogether, at least temporarily.

Well, the two sides and their lawyers will fight this out for a while, and Brooks acknowledged that “we will be making some changes and tweaks,” as the process moves along. Meanwhile, for those not immersed in the minutia, a few points:

–What’s the problem? Only a tiny fraction of projects that go through the Act 250 process have any archeological complication. According to the Division of Historical Preservation, in 2006 only 57, or 11 percent, of 501 Act 250 projects even required a site visit, which costs nothing. Only 16 of those projects required any further study, meaning that 97 percent of all projects were cleared for development with no cost to the developer.

–Context is important. Here the context is that Gov. Jim Douglas’s Administration is closely allied with the development community – builders, realtors, and their finances – and intent on “reforming,” which often means weakening, regulations.

Thanks to this alliance, environmentalists and their allies view any proposed rules change with suspicion.

“If you look at what’s happening with ANR (Agency of National Resources) and their attempt to streamline permitting and eliminating staff for enforcement, this is all part of a concerted effort by the Douglas Administration to build whatever, wherever, as much as possible,” said Rep. Tony Klein of Montpelier, the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

–Never (or almost never) in the entire history of the human race has anyone proposed changing rules just for “clarification.” Process is not important; substance is. If the Administration wants to change the rules, it surely wants to change the results, perhaps not so that contractors can “build whatever, wherever,” but so they can build more, faster.

Which was precisely one of the goals of Thursday’s meeting. As Bill Driscoll acknowledged, the business community believes the permitting process is “too unpredictable, too open-ended, in terms of the delays and the costs involved.” IAV and its co-sponsors are allies of (and its members are campaign contributors to) the Governor.

None of which proves that some streamlining of the permitting process is not a good idea. Jonathan Wood’s point that permits ought to be granted “not to the applicant who can survive the (permitting) process but to the applicant who can comply with the regulations” seems sensible on its face.

But it is a good reason why, even if nothing much transpired at Thursday’s meeting, the public ought to know what goes on at these meetings just in case something does.

NOTE: The News Guy is taking next week off. New postings resume August 10.

This is Vermont, where (with a few exceptions of course) everybody is nice.

Why not? Life is nice here; niceness inspires niceness. Nice people don’t make much trouble.

This characteristic applies to journalism and its practitioners, most of whom are nice, and who therefore make little trouble, even when they should.

Now they should. Herewith, an attempt to make trouble.

From nine in the morning to (roughly) four in the afternoon on Thursday, Vermont business leaders will meet at the Capitol Plaza Hotel across the street from the State House in downtown Montpelier with senior state officials – including Jonathan Wood, the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources, who is scheduled to be the lunch speaker – to discuss “major regulatory developments.”

A bland enough term, but one with real-life consequences. Even minor regulatory developments help determine the extent of Lake Champlain’s pollution, the preservation of wetlands, how many historic buildings will be saved from the wrecker’s ball.

Thursday’s meeting, according to its chief sponsor, the Associated Industries of Vermont, will pay special attention to “concerns surrounding archeological rules in Vermont and rule revisions being proposed by the Agency of Commerce and Community Development.”

Those rule revisions are controversial. Archeologists and their supporters argue that the proposed changes would eliminate preservation on “ lands that have potential (archeological) sites, and restrict it to known sites. That leaves us only investigating areas where there are known historical sites,” said John Crock, an archeology professor at the University of Vermont.

Not so, said David Mace, Director of Communications at the Commerce Agency. The proposed changes, he said, are largely “clarifying what already exists in statute,” at the direction of the legislature.

Either way, Thursday’s conference will provide an opportunity for partisans on one side of the debate – the side that wants to “clarify”( or weaken as the case may be) the rules– to spend several hours presenting their case to some of the very officials who will make the final (though not quite irrevocable) decision.

The event, in short, is newsworthy. Not just in the sense of appealing to the public’s curiosity, like a celebrity wedding or (as recently seen) funeral, either. This is an event likely to influence government officials as they make public policy. At the very least, it will provide some people the opportunity to try to convince those government officials to make the public policy the guests want.

The public, then, has a genuine (as opposed to prurient )interest in knowing what goes on in that hotel meeting-room – what the officials say and what the business leaders say to them, the questions asked, the concerns expressed, the opinions offered.

Fuhgeddaboudit.

The proceedings may be important to the public, but they are closed to the public and to the public’s eyes and ears – the press.

“It’s not some sort of press event,” said Bill Driscoll, one of AIV’s several registered lobbyists and its spokesperson.

“It’s not like any sort of official meeting, “ he said. It’s a seminar. It’s not an event for (government) agency folks to listen to us as much as an event for us to listen to agency folks. People come with the expectation that it’s going to be an off-the-record meeting.”

Let’s recapitulate. The highest-ranking environmental official in the state of Vermont plus the general council of two Agencies plus the deputy commissioner of a department are going to speak in the meeting-room of a public accommodation to a fairly large number of people (the hotel’s Montpelier Room would seem to have room for at least 100), most of whom have a vested interest in what those officials decide to do about the subject on the agenda.

And it’s all going to be secret.

And nobody’s complaining.

Until now.

Let’s not get carried away. Everything that is happening is legal. The Capitol Plaza is a privately owned public accommodation and the event’s sponsors – VELCO, the engineering firm ECS and the law firm Paul Frank and Collins, as well as AIV – are private firms not bound by any open meeting laws.

Nothing illegal and nothing corrupt, at least as the word is commonly used. As Driscoll said, “if people wanted to exert influence, they’d be better off picking up the phone and calling (a state official).”

In fact, almost everything Driscoll said was reasonable and courteous (as he has been in past telephone conversations), and no doubt he was telling the truth when he pronounced himself “at a little bit of a loss” in understanding the News Guy’s (perhaps excessive) insistence that the event ought to be open.

The one thing he said that was obviously false (though perhaps technically true) was that the conference “would not be a lobbying event.”

In that most of the guests (he being an exception) will not be official lobbyists, probably right. In that they will not try to convince the officials that they are right and the archeologists and environmentalists wrong, nonsense. Of course they will. They’d be fools if they didn’t.

But the purpose here is not to criticize Driscoll, who was doing his job, nor AIV and the other sponsors, who are doing theirs.

Is the government?

Are the news organizations?

The officials who are scheduled to attend the gathering could not be reached. The spokespersons for their agencies, David Mace for Commerce and Sabina Haskell, the Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources, said they knew of no policy suggesting that public officials not appear at conferences closed to reporters. In fact, they both seemed puzzled by the very notion.

“It hasn’t come up,” Haskell said.

Both said that as far as they knew none of the officials planned to release a text or a transcript of their remarks.

In fact, such gatherings would appear to be routine in Montpelier. As does journalistic acceptance of them. From what Driscoll, Mace, and Haskell said, reporters have not complained about such closed conferences, nor sought entry to them.

There is a difference between nice and wimpy.

Three quick points: First, this has nothing to do with the privileges of journalists, who have none. It has everything to do with the obligation of journalists, one of which is to tell the public (because no one else can) who is trying to influence the process of making public policy, and how they’re trying to do it.

Second, of course people have the right to meet privately with state officials. They do it all the time, in offices and over lunches for two or three. Fine. That’s not the same as inviting some scores of people to listen to speeches by senior government officials in a quasi-public setting. Driscoll said Jonathan Wood’s appearance was not really a “speech.” It’s billed on AIV’s web site as an “address.” That’s a speech.

Arguably, these interest groups have the “right” to hold such gatherings in secret, too. Reporters have the obligation to protest. I protest.

Third, in response to the challenge of one state official, yes, the same standard has to be applied to all interest groups. If an environmental organization or a union were to hold a similar event, reporters should seek to cover it. Paul Burns of VPIRG and Jake Brown of the Vermont Natural Resources Council said their organizations have not kept the press out of such gatherings, and would not.

Briefly, the News Guy thought of invading the conference and daring the organizers to throw him out. But that would be impolite (even the News Guy isn’t all that not nice). Besides, reporters should cover the story. They should not be the story.

But I’ll be there Thursday morning. Asking (courteously) to be allowed to cover the event. Failing that, asking the state officials if they really think they ought to speak at a closed meeting, and at least asking them what they say.

All other Vermont reporters with gumption are invited.

Any gumption around here?

(Come back Friday for the denouement, and a discussion of the archeological rules debate).

Did you know that in 2007, 122 people who lived in Alabama had lived in Vermont a year earlier? And that 65 Vermonters had been Alabamians in 2006?

Or so says the Census Bureau.

The bet here is that you didn’t know. Now you do. Do you care? Should you?

Probably no to both those questions, too. In and of itself, those statistics mean little, if anything. And if they do mean anything, it’s not clear just what that anything is.

That’s a good rule to keep in mind when analyzing population statistics, especially interim population statistics, which are estimates and projections, not hard numbers. (Actually, the Census itself is something of an estimate and projection, too; but much less).

For instance, we (sort of) know how many people moved between Alabama and Vermont. We have no idea who they are or why they moved. As Will Sawyer, the manager of the Vermont Data Center at the University of Vermont’s Center for Rural Studies noted (via email), “Secondary data only tells us so much.  The real answers are in people’s stories on the ground.”

Meaningful or not, interim population info is interesting, and as long as one resists the temptation to over-interpret, possibly useful.

Also, as Sawyer indicated, complex, with too many details and contradictions to examine in one sitting. So this will be the first of several postings over the next few weeks examining the interim numbers that the Census Bureau released earlier this month. In these exercises, we will stick to the numbers as much as possible, but a certain amount of conjecture will be inevitable.

Meaningful or not, those Alabama-Vermont numbers are representative. By and large, more people are moving from Vermont to other states than from other states to Vermont.

The state’s population is growing, if slowly, due to natural increase (more births than deaths) and to immigration from other countries. But there is “a net domestic migration decrease (state to state) throughout Vermont,” in the words of Will Sawyer’s memo to Vermont census data contacts.

Are we doing something wrong?

Maybe. But we’re also in the Northeast, from which people have been moving elsewhere for decades.

No great mystery here. The Northeast is older, colder, and more crowded. Ever since there has been an America, people have been moving from the more settled to the less settled areas. (Come to think of it, they were doing this before there was an America; that’s why there is an America.

It’s demography’s version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which holds that, in a closed system, heat and energy flow from the warmer to the colder spots (but it doesn’t all get there, meaning entropy rules, so why bother to do anything at all?). In this case, though, the movement is from the colder to the warmer spots, not to mention that the world is not a closed system.

Here’s what might be a contradiction, though. People may move from the more crowded regions, but they move to the more crowded parts of those less crowded regions. Meaning that (here’s some of that inevitable conjecture) most of those Vermonters who moved to Alabama went from rural or small-town Vermont to Birmingham or Mobile and their suburbs, not to rural or small-town Alabama.

Here we have a possible (more conjecture) solution to an apparent mystery in the latest Census numbers, which showed small population declines in the southern part of the state.

That’s not the mystery. After all, those are rural counties, and rural counties are losing population all over the country, especially if, as is the case here, many residents earned their keep in small factories, also on the decline nationwide.

But then why isn’t the Northeast Kingdom losing population? Orleans, Caledonia, and Essex Counties are rural, with some manufacturing jobs. Essex did lose a handful of people. But the other two counties grew. What have St. Johnsbury and Newport got that Bennington and Brattleboro don’t?

Maybe it’s what they don’t have that Bennington and Brattleboro do: Nearby cities.

People tend to move to nearby places. Specifically, people tend to move from rural and small town areas to the nearest metropolitan area. More Vermonters move to New Hampshire (3,772 in 2007) than vice versa (2,267). But they didn’t just move to “New Hampshire” as some abstract entity. Most of them moved to the Manchester, Nashua, Portsmouth, or Concord areas. That’s where the jobs are.

A fairly short hop from Brattleboro, and not that far from Bennington. The cities of northern Massachusetts aren’t far, either. But all of them are much farther from the Northeast Kingdom. For all sorts of reasons – family, friends, familiarity, inertia – many people like to stick as close to home as possible. And there’s not much point in moving from Caledonia or Essex County, Vermont, to Coos County, New Hampshire, where the economic outlook is no better.

Gregory “Rex” Burke, the executive director of the Bennington County Regional Commission, said his county is losing population for several reasons, one of which might be that what he called “the Vermont mystique” keeps prices high.

This makes sense. “Vermont” is surely a state and perhaps a state of mind. But it has also become a brand. A product made in Vermont is slightly more desirable than the same product would be if it were made elsewhere. The same is true of real estate. By and large, this is good for the state’s economy. But as the words to the 1944 Mills Brothers hit Till Then pointed out, “every gain must have a loss.” A house or land just over the line in Rensselaer County, New York, might be slightly cheaper than a comparable property in Bennington County simply because it isn’t in Vermont, and Burke said some (now former) Vermonters have taken advantage of the lower prices.

A closer look at the numbers indicates that simply pointing out the population decline in Bennington County is insufficient. Burke and his assistant, Jim Sullivan, noted that the northern part of the county is growing, thanks to second home development, ski areas and other tourist amenities. It’s southern Bennington County, and especially the town of Bennington itself, one of the places which has lost manufacturing jobs.

“The town of Bennington lost 400 (manufacturing) jobs in ten years,” Sullivan said. “Then before the recession came we had an increase of 200. We thought we were going to see population growth along with this manufacturing growth.”

Needless to say, what they thought did not come to pass, for reasons not at all peculiar to Bennington or to Vermont. Those numbers do indicate, though, that even the parts of Vermont that are losing population are hardly fading away, Even the population declines, Sullivan said, that “we really don’t know whether it’s a blip or the beginning of some new trend.”

To recap, there is much we don’t know, and much more to discuss—about jobs and taxes, about why Chittenden County is both Vermont’s fastest-growing and the county which more people leave, about who stays, who goes, who arrives, and why, about whether population growth is necessary or even desirable in the first place.

More coming anon.